Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: digitaldog on August 21, 2014, 10:37:36 am
-
I thought Will Crocket's video on sRGB vs. Adobe RGB were a hoot but this guy Gary Fong is very wrong but a very funny guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i95ZghwUf4&feature=youtu.be
2014 and we still get this kind of nonsense?
-
I first saw that one a few days ago, and it was good for a laugh. A nice mix of context-free sweeping generalizations, factual inaccuracies, conflations of different factors, and misguided folksy non-remedies for good colour. I'm not sure he realizes the irony of his statement in his own text description of the video: "You will hear in the comments many misguided attempts by self-proclaimed experts that are trying to sound smart but are very, very wrong - and this is super common." Yeah, himself included.
But my laugh was kind of rueful, too. Like you, I thought "wow -- we're still getting howlers like this coming out?"
-
Oh wow that was painful to watch.
Textbook colorspace explained wrong if we needed another example.
It helps understanding how some people come up with such strange theories sometimes while discussing calibration, this one is sort of creative.
I really wonder how he came up with that too.
-
The part that kills me, but which I didn't want to even begin getting into, is when he switches his monitor profiles between sRGB and AdobeRGB to demonstrate his point that AdobeRGB results in dull colors. Watching this wreck feels a little dirty — like rubbernecking at a highway accident.
-
Watching this wreck feels a little dirty — like rubbernecking at a highway accident.
I know, what a guilty pleasure. I want to stop posting but like rubbernecking at a highway accident, I can't wait to see what he comes up with next.
-
The part that kills me, but which I didn't want to even begin getting into, is when he switches his monitor profiles between sRGB and AdobeRGB to demonstrate his point that AdobeRGB results in dull colors. Watching this wreck feels a little dirty — like rubbernecking at a highway accident.
Exactly my feelings - and the whole rest was even worse, so far beyond stupid! It was a pure color management horror...
-
This man deserves a medal. He has boldly gone where no man has gone before. Or wanted to. He has plumbed new depths. I thought I had heard and read every possible misunderstanding on colour that a sentient creature could possibly hold, but I was wrong!
And further: reading the painful correspondance with Andrew, he is quite immune from any explanation of his misunderstanding.
He is up there with the very finest here on Lula and especially on dpreview, those capable of holding steadfast beliefs without evidence, and in the teeth of the most powerful evidence to the contrary.
Sir, I salute you!
-
This man deserves a medal. He has boldly gone where no man has gone before. Or wanted to. He has plumbed new depths. I thought I had heard and read every possible misunderstanding on colour that a sentient creature could possibly hold, but I was wrong!
ROTFL! :D
Fong has provided me with a new respect for Will Crockett's old video on the subject.
-
But wait, there's even more standup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU
Look at the comments from a few days ago by Alex. He's getting the usual Fong treatment.
-
Andrew the latest video: Oh noes :o
-
Andrew,
Re: the comments following both videos:
To those of us on LuLa (and other sites as well) you have a reputation for having a low tolerance for those who talk out of the distal end of their alimentary tract (and we love you for that). I am therefore amazed that you took the time and effort to engage this particular idiot in such a lengthy exchange. I understand the urge to protect the wider public from such nonsense, but the one good thing about banging your head against a wall is, it feels so good when you stop.
-
If the extent of your technical knowledge and capabilities leads you to seek out Gary Fong as your source of color space tutorial information, then yes...you should probably be shooting in sRGB.
The former mistake being much worse than the latter. :)
-
If the extent of your technical knowledge and capabilities leads you to seek out Gary Fong as your source of color space tutorial information, then yes...you should probably be shooting in sRGB.
Until yesterday I had never heard of him! Someone on Linkedin posted a link to this new video. What a revelation. Since I had no idea who he was, I tried to suggest his video could use a bit of tech edit and after reading his reply to those who negatively commented about the video, I decided to be gently suggest he not take anything said personally. I had no idea he'd react as he did, then it just got more and more entertaining to see him implode. Somewhere, the guy has to be selling snake oil.
-
Somewhere, the guy has to be selling snake oil.
He has been selling snake oil for quite some time. Does "Gary Fong Light Sphere" ring a bell?
-
This was an especially nice exchange:
Alex Uriatin:
"A small addition to my previous comment. The hues that the speaker thinks should be "cropped" (red and violet) are those which are least involved. AdobeRGB and sRGB gamut boundaries at the blue/violet and red edges are very much the same. The largest difference between them is in cyan/green corner of the gamut. These saturated colors will be clipped the most.
Gary Fong:
"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum. Why do people who know nothing about photography try to act like experts?"
It seems he's never looked at a gamut plot, or didn't understand it if he did.
-
Oof. Brutal. There are so many resources available on this topic (like this one (http://amzn.com/0321267222)) that it's stunning to see such blatant ignorance. By the end of the video, it's easy to think he was joking.
-
It's sad but he's all about the marketing and he uses troll-like and spammer-like tactics as part of that marketing.
It's pretty clear to me that he says these stupid things on purpose to generate the controversy and get the attention. That's the troll-like aspect of his marketing.
He also gets so outrageous with his comments that average folks are thinking "How can anyone fall for this line of garbage?". What you have to understand though is that like the writers of the Nigerian prince scams, he isn't after the average intelligent prospect. His target prospects are the naive, the under-educated, and the desperate.
It doesn't bother him one bit that he loses the folks that are at least half-way discerning and intelligent. He doesn't want them as customers anyway. He wants the easy marks.
If he can paint "peers" and honest experts as bullies and nerdish technocrats in the process, so much the better. It will be well-received by many of his target prospects who are resistant to the idea of maybe actually having to study and work at something instead of just buying it.
-
It's sad but he's all about the marketing and he uses troll-like and spammer-like tactics as part of that marketing.
It's pretty clear to me that he says these stupid things on purpose to generate the controversy and get the attention. That's the troll-like aspect of his marketing.
He also gets so outrageous with his comments that average folks are thinking "How can anyone fall for this line of garbage?". What you have to understand though is that like the writers of the Nigerian prince scams, he isn't after the average intelligent prospect. His target prospects are the naive, the under-educated, and the desperate.
It doesn't bother him one bit that he loses the folks that are at least half-way discerning and intelligent. He doesn't want them as customers anyway. He wants the easy marks.
If he can paint "peers" and honest experts as bullies and nerdish technocrats in the process, so much the better. It will be well-received by many of his target prospects who are resistant to the idea of maybe actually having to study and work at something instead of just buying it.
That's an elaborate theory.
Not impossible, I would agree with you that he uses controversy as a tool.
And yep, people love that on the internet; If you're ready to provoke and fight it makes you known: regardless if you're right or wrong.
Well I fell into the trap and eventually commented after understanding why he gets the whole thing wrong after reading a detail.
https://plus.google.com/102063546553760443692/posts/jD8FaxKbNE1
Quoting:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum. Why do people who know nothing about photography try to act like experts?
Apparently, he really believes that RGB encoded colors are able to contain spectrum data, from one wavelength to another.
So based on his initial assumption, "wider" or not makes perfect sense and everyone else is wrong.
Of course, we know that RGB image encoding obey instead to completely different model, so I tried explaining him that in the YouTube comment.
It will probably fail like other attempts but what the hell ;D
-
It's tempting to think people like this are stupid, but not necessarily. You see this sort of behaviour on forums at times, even from people that very obviously aren't stupid.
He's got something wrong, but can't countenance the idea of being wrong. So he digs himself in deeper and deeper, and subconsciously redirects possible guilt at being wrong into anger at anyone that points it out, getting more and more abusive to anyone around.
It's a character defect that we probably all have to some extent and is nothing to do with intelligence. How much easier to say "Oh, sorry, I got it wrong" early on, than later, having invested so much personal credibility into the wrong idea. At that later point, any rational reassessment of one's ideas becomes very difficult.
-
I will say this: he (Gary Fong) does make good flash diffusers.
-
I've wanted to comment on this, but words escape me. So I won't.
But I see there are some conspiracy theories here (he wants to attract attention and so on). I think it's much simpler than that - it's just the way our brains are wired. We try to make sense of the world, and once we think we have it, dig our heels in and seek confirmation. Anyone challenging the position will then be seen as a direct threat and met with hostility.
We all do it, it's just a question of where in the process the lightbulb fires. Here you could say it misfired. But history is full of this, it's the same mechanism that fuels political and religious bigotry.
-
I will say this: he (Gary Fong) does make good flash diffusers.
+1 I've used his diffusers very effectively on several commercial "on location" projects w/ multiple small diffused flash units. Which makes me wonder where he came by his bizzare understanding of color management and his intransigence. In an attempt to disabuse him of his misunderstanding, I've posted a comment at the YouTube site including a link to a presentation by R Mac Holbert on the subject. Mac should prove difficult to argue with, one would think.
Rand
-
I think it's much simpler than that - it's just the way our brains are wired.
Depends on the wiring and who's brain. Now Gary feels he should go to the few YouTube video's I've made and negatively post comments. When I did my DNG video, I made a mistake, saying in it that you can't build a dual illuminate profile within the X-rite plug-in. Someone, I think here on LuLa pointed out that was wrong so I corrected it in a comment at the top saying I was wrong. Gary just commented on the same site "you're an expert and you are wrong" or something to that effect. The guy doesn't get the concept of peer review. He doesn't understand we were not born with a knowledge of color management or imaging and we all struggle to different degrees, to understand the topics. He doesn't understand we all make mistakes or that we can learn from them. I told him exactly that when I said I was just trying to help him with my very first post to his video but he's progressively getting nastier as the hour goes on. So I don't think he has any motivation to educate or help his audience, he's got something to sell. And like that car crash, he's getting progressively more outlandish in his comments which just add to the stand up comic antics of his new (is it new?) act.
-
Depends on the wiring and who's brain.
Yeah, true. Most of us have functioning corrective circuitry and feedback loops to keep the worst excesses in check ;D
-
... He's got something wrong, but can't countenance the idea of being wrong...
Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.
* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."
-
Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.
* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."
+1
-
I thought Will Crocket's video on sRGB vs. Adobe RGB were a hoot but this guy Gary Fong is very wrong but a very funny guy.
Coming back on your first message, I just watched this video by Will Crocket : Color Profiling: http://youtu.be/_GdY4YqIzY4
And it's actually not bad at all (for as long as it lasts as it's cut in the middle).
Then on Gary Crocket event video, the same Will congratulate him for fighting against the "Adobe Mafia".
Strange.
-
Coming back on your first message, I just watched this video by Will Crocket : Color Profiling: http://youtu.be/_GdY4YqIzY4
That is a different video, I'll check it out when I get home. The original sRGB video was pulled I believe when Will moved to this new site.
-
Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.
* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."
A great insight. You should post to that effect (kindly ;D ) on the YouTube page!
Rand
-
Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.
* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."
After watching more of his YouTube videos (starting with introduction) and bio I realize why you cared as he's a known photographer and just enters the business of instructional videos.
The business model being selling premium subscriptions, with YouTube videos being a social marketing tool; exposing him being wrong on something probably threaten his business and initiative (in his perception), why he takes the whole thing wrong so far.
Unfortunately, with such insecurities, behavior and communication issues his career on YouTube is gonna be painful for him unless he makes adjustments.
Sad indeed, and if his influence grows we'll see this video being quoted increasingly.
-
Sorry, this guy does made a very good Lightsphere. I've been using it since it was out.
I know he is a good businessman.
But seriously! He knows nothing about color management.
When I do lecture, a lot of people don't really understand the difference between the actual number and the volume.
Feel bad for him because I found his mistake :P
But also feel bad for all of his viewer because they've just wasted their time......
aaron
-
But also feel bad for all of his viewer because they've just wasted their time......
Exactly. You can see the first few comments from the unsuspecting viewers with thumb's up and saying how great the video was. They have no idea they are drinking his silly cool aid. Gary is beyond hope but there is hope for those who stumble onto his site and think they are getting good information. I agree he could have just said something to the effect: If you don't know what anything but sRGB is, just use sRGB. Not that this would aid that much in a beginners overall education. Showing what sRGB data looks like when assumed to be Adobe RGB (1998), using the display profile instead of Photoshop (where he could have explained what Assign Profile does) is even worse. When I suggested to him that the message could have been to teach users that assuming the wrong color space upon a current set of numbers is a bad practice, he suggests his audience isn't going to sit through such explanations, it's over their heads. It's over HIS head.
-
That is a different video, I'll check it out when I get home. The original sRGB video was pulled I believe when Will moved to this new site.
At least he does mention that you can get external monitors that can display the Adobe RGB color space. Not sure I understand why he is so interesting as the are so many people who don't understand color management and many other topics btw ;)
-
So the Crockett piece I referred to originally wasn't a video but an article on his old SmartShooter (oxymoron?) site and the URL is dead. I have a copy of it saved as a PDF but it's probably far from appropriate or legal to provide it in total. But some of the better pieces of text:
sRGB vs Adobe RGB: The Truth
by Will Crockett last updated - December of 2004
Controversy, arguments, name calling, forum flaming.
Over world politics? Taxes? paper or plastic?
Nope, over color spaces for professional photography!
FACT ONE: there are no printers with a color space (aka output space) that is larger (holding more volume of data) than sRGB.
FACT TWO: Just about all portrait labs want you to to send them files that are in the sRGB color space for printing. Why? Because their big expensive digital printers have an “input space" that allows them to print any pixel data as long as it fits inside this input space. Any data that is outside of this input space (called out of gamut data) will simply not be printed - it just disappears.
The input space or “mouth” of the lab grade printers is defined by a specific color space. That space is usually sRGB. So if your meatball sandwich is larger than sRGB, say it’s the size of the wider AdobeRGB space, you or your lab will need to convert that sandwich down to the sRGB size before sending it over to the printer. If not...it’s meatballs for you pal. ; )
Most wedding / portrait shooters may never need to capture and print any pixel that's outside sRGB which is why so many sucessful wedding / portrait shooters just set up for sRGB workflow and forget about it.
Just remember that no data outside of the sRGB space can be printed by the big portrait labs (without a custom printing fee or re-profiling) so if you shoot in Adobe RGB be sure to convert it to sRGB before submission.
He shows a 3D gamut map of sRGB and a Fuji PG 4500 and Epson 2200, the maps show lots of colors of both devices outside the sRGB gamut (meaning he doesn't understand how to read the map)!
In hindsight, Will got the piece far, far more accurately written with a far better message than Gary! He's a bit confused about the differences in sRGB and output color space gamut. But he's a color scientist in comparison to Gary's awful video.
-
So the Crockett piece I referred to originally wasn't a video but an article on his old SmartShooter (oxymoron?) site and the URL is dead. I have a copy of it saved as a PDF but it's probably far from appropriate or legal to provide it in total. But some of the better pieces of text:
He shows a 3D gamut map of sRGB and a Fuji PG 4500 and Epson 2200, the maps show lots of colors of both devices outside the sRGB gamut (meaning he doesn't understand how to read the map)!
In hindsight, Will got the piece far, far more accurately written with a far better message than Gary! He's a bit confused about the differences in sRGB and output color space gamut. But he's a color scientist in comparison to Gary's awful video.
Oh right, thanks for sharing this old stuff for reference.
There was indeed a consistent error based on the simple assumption that printing happened in sRGB - end of story.
His explanation checked out as long as you accepted his facts as true.
Glad it has been corrected by putting the content offline.
Now that Will Crocket realized the conceptual error, it's hard to understand why he would encourage Gary's views.
Maybe both think that they're helping photographers not run into colorspace troubles (which might be true with some labs? I know nothing about that) by recommending sRGB, and that technicalities used to convince them really don't matter as long as they're heard.
Most people making something happily forget that a lot of what we do today is 99.99% (just made that up) built on top of previous work.
Take your digital camera, press a button, you get a JPEG image: your own creation!
Well... :P
-
Related but not exactly on the same topic, the same Gary Fong happily publishes a video named:
The Sony a6000 Extensive Highly Detailed Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21HxRnSlPzc)
Yet in this other video titled Gary Fong Explains The Latest Sony Innovations (http://youtu.be/rOvYm_KOd3o), quoting:
Hi everybody this is Gary Fong, and it is a real pleasure to be here on behalf of Sony, the largest consumer electronics company in the world
In this second video, he starts by promoting briefly his diffuser products, and makes a live demo/ad for Sony face tracking autofocus.
Based on the fact his a6000 "review" lists only positive points, praising the product to no end, it tells a little about how this character cares about integrity in general.
-
... it tells a little about how this character cares about integrity in general.
He did say "on behalf of Sony," didn't he?
Anyone not living under a rock would understand that what follows is an infomercial, not independent review, and will take it as such.
-
He did say "on behalf of Sony," didn't he?
Anyone not living under a rock would understand that what follows is an infomercial, not independent review, and will take it as such.
Sorry my post was probably not formulated well enough.
The issue is that Apr 7, 2014 he speaks in behalf of Sony.
Then Apr 20, 2014 he published a a6000 "review".
That is an ad, not a review.
He doesn't even bother listing a single con or limitation to find a balance that would make it a tad less biased content.
Hence the lack of integrity I describe here, as even native advertising disclose its nature.
He even goes as far as refuting it in the video description.
-
He did say "on behalf of Sony," didn't he?
Anyone not living under a rock would understand that what follows is an infomercial, not independent review, and will take it as such.
And yet, it appears Gary is aming for those folks living under a rock based on this video and replies to those who don't agree with him completely. That's what kind of pisses me off about his MO. He's looking for those beginners or rock duellers to feed upon.
-
Unfortunately that is a sign of the times. The only barrier to publish anything today is to log on a site and post; no peer review or editorial review, so you end up with plenty of misleading information by self-acclaimed experts. Color management is not the only topic that suffers this, also ETTR, RAW Vs JPeg, bit depth, and many more etc.
The worst part is not being wrong but not accepting when you're proven wrong and assume a defensive position.
-
I will say this: he (Gary Fong) does make good flash diffusers.
Indeed they are good. But rather expensive considering that you can make one yourself for nearly nothing, from a plastic milk container or a piece of Tupperware.
-
The worst part is not being wrong but not accepting when you're proven wrong and assume a defensive position.
I quite recently ran into this from a well-known blogger and reviewer who titled a review "A must-have item" (not an exact quote, but close enough), then proceeded to heap praise upon this item and then casually mentioned that he had, in fact, not seen or used the item in question, but based his praise on the fact that he knew this guy and all his other items were really really good. I called him out on this, that this was off an ad than a review; his response was very defensive and a little nasty; I called him out on that and found myself banned for life from his website.
-
Hi everybody. I saw a direct link to this forum, and saw your comments, and thought I would address them.
If you look at the context of the video, I am explaining why people find that as soon as they switch their cameras to the AdobeRGB color space, their colors appear lifeless and dull. In the beginning of the video, one of the first things that I express is, "AdobeRGB is superior - IF you have the equipment that can exploit it". I then go on to explain that the majority of the wet process printers (RA-4) and web browsers are all within the narrow gamut of sRGB.
For those of you who do not know my background, I was a professional wedding photographer for 20 years, and shot over 1,000 weddings. I then went on to start a photo lab called, "Pictage, Inc." with one of the first Fuji Frontier printers. We were the first company to have to crack open the hood and tone down the saturation and up the midrange tones because the stock Frontiers were too hot. We literally had techs from FujiFilm in West Hollywood over at the lab every day to help me dial it in. Eventually, we got it all dialed in, and went on to become the largest online pro photo lab in the USA, going from six people to 170 employees before we sold it for $29 Million.
During this time, I was involved in testing and prototyping the Fuji S3 and S4. I shot the national ad campaigns before that. And prior to buying my Fuji Frontier, I spent time in Rochester with Kodak, aiding their engineers and testing the prototypes of what became Portra film. I then went and did a number of national platforms for Kodak, and Hasselblad, and appeared in Hasselblad's ad campaigns.
So I intimately know color management as we were the first on the horizon when the world switched to digital. The Fuji Frontier was the bridge technology, scanning negative film to digital (sRGB width) files, which then were stored and printed on RA-4 process printers. We had C-41 film developers, as well as our Frontiers, so I had to learn everything about color management. We had to bullseye our RA-4 output to adjust our chemistry to keep everything balanced. Back then, we used densitometers before the concept of Spiders was even a fantasy.
So when I do a video aimed at helping the enthusiast understand a very basic misunderstanding about color space, I used metaphors like "Muffin tops" and "wide rainbows" to help people understand color clipping - a very widely experienced phenomenon among people who read that AdobeRGB is better, switch to it, then are disappointed in their color. To help illustrate this, I showed a completely red and violet square, side by side, and used my apple monitor profile to simulate color clipping. By switching my monitor from sRGB to AdobeRGB, I forced the monitor to "expect" a wider gamut, thereby showing only the middle of the width.
So when Andrew Rodney went on the attack, accusing me of not knowing color management, and then going on to literally say on his Google+ page that my misunderstandings were possibly because I was having problems reading english (an obviously cheap and racist remark), I could not be ok with this. Not only is he being unfair and petulant, he is accusing me of a lot of wrongdoing. He accuses me of trying to mislead people for financial gain.
It is not of any benefit to me if people shoot sRGB or AdobeRGB. I do not sell educational products about color management like Mr. Rodney does. The reason I'm doing this is because I spend a lot of time internationally giving workshops and seminars simply to learn the needs of photographers, so I can stay in touch with what my customer's needs are, and to understand what hinders them from improving their photography.
Despite the cheap shots I've seen here about my "tupperware", my products are the market leader, are carefully researched and tested, have a ten year history of use worldwide acceptance. You'll see my products in use at press events, magazine shoots and by NASA. Jay Meisel, Greg Gorman and many other legendary photographers use my lighting accessories. My Lightsphere was named Popular Photography's Product of the Year in 2010. I have had the good fortune of, well, good fortune, so I don't need to make money off of misleading people for whatever motive in misleading them about color management.
I had a lengthy phone conversation with Will Crockett today, who originally was poked at the beginning of this thread. I have known of Will Crockett's deep knowledge of color printing because he was giving nationwide tours for FujiFilm back when I purchased my $240,000 Fuji Frontier. The management at Fuji hand picked Will because of his knowledge and popular method of teaching. He gave me quite the education of Andrew Rodney, and we will be doing a Skype video to clear up the confusion stirred up by Mr. Rodney (and others) for a YouTube video.
Mr. Rodney is critical of my neophyte misunderstanding of color, yet I know it very well. Mr. Rodney is not a professional photographer, and AdobeRGB did not take over the sRGB world in print volume worldwide, as Adobe wished it would. It does have a wider gamut but nobody will dispute that the equipment that exploits it is pale in comparison to sRGB equipment worldwide. And, nobody can dispute that if a typical photographer shoots JPG and uploads directly to the web or goes to wet process will need to change the color profile of an AdobeRGB file to sRGB for optimal display for common browsers.
I had a student at one of my workshops insist that AdobeRGB was better than sRGB, and I agreed with him. And I asked him to show us one of his prints, and the students commented that the red umbrella appeared dull. I then went on to explain how color clipping occurs, and this student got very angry. He said he much preferred the color of the AdobeRGB, and when I turned the paper over, it said, "Fuji Crystal Archive" - a wet process RA-4 printer paper used then exclusively by the Fuji Frontiers. I pointed out why the other students found his colors to be dull, and he became very angry. He absolutely insisted that his print had better color, so be it.
Color is subjective, but the application of the use of the most proper color space is not. You can create stunning prints with AdobeRGB and a continuous color management workflow that preserves it from generation to generation. And I am sure that those of you who do this from beginning to end earn the pride of enjoying your enhanced color. But you are not everybody, and the person who buys the Digital Rebel is at risk of reading experts decry that AdobeRGB is always better. It's not. Not in a hybrid workflow that starts with a wide gamut and ends with a narrow one.
This has gotten so intensely blown out of proportion that I am proud to announce that we will be doing a series of Skype interviews with top experts in photography and color management to address this.
I am super thankful to Will Crockett for giving me the run through about Rodney Andrew. Yes my responses have been very blunt, but it's because it is really something to see this kind of criticism when it is unfounded and unwarranted. And I am dedicated to bringing out clarity, and truth, especially about the history and background of Rodney Andrew.
To the moderators, please review your TOS, because I feel like a lot of these potshots in this thread violates it. And for the record, while I am of chinese descent, I do not speak chinese. English is my first language, and I can read it just fine.
Gary Fong
CEO Gary Fong Inc.
-
And yet, it appears Gary is aming for those folks living under a rock based on this video and replies to those who don't agree with him completely. That's what kind of pisses me off about his MO. He's looking for those beginners or rock duellers to feed upon.
So, Gary is a snake oil salesmen preying on the ignorant. His video is a train wreck which I did not find in the least bit funny. It was really sad that some yahoo can post this kind of craps on the uneducated public and not get called on the carpet…
Against my better judgement (let idiots entertain themselves), I did make a comment on the video. In the event it get's yanked, here it is…
Jeff Schewe 9 minutes ago
So, not for nothing but changing the monitor profile from sRGB to Adobe RGB is useless when comparing color spaces. There are tools for comparing gamut plots to show the differences between color spaces, but diddling your display profile isn't one of them.
Quick test, take an ARGB image and do a Convert to Profile command to sRGB…do you see any change? You may with some colors that are outside of sRGB but it will be subtle. But NOTHING like what the presenter is trying to show by misusing the display profile.
Point of fact, RGB color spaces use only Relative Colorimetric rendering intents and will introduce gamut clipping, but you can download a beta sRGB profile that allows for using a Perceptual rendering intent when preparing images for the web or photo lab.(http://www.color.org). It allows transforming from ARGB to sRGB with a perceptual rendering thus ensuring you don't clip useful colors…
Personally, I think it's rather sad when presenters foist misinformation on people who don't know any better. I'm sure he means well, but this video is a train wreck. But hey, if you want to "believe" what he says, go right ahead. Personally I use the only working space that can contain (without clipping) all the colors your camera can capture (in raw)….ProPhoto RGB. Course, I kinda know what I'm doing…
Your turn Gary…wanna go head to head with me?
Show less
-
By switching my printer monitor from sRGB to AdobeRGB, I forced the monitor to "expect" a wider gamut, thereby showing only the middle of the width.
So, what exactly is a "printer monitor"? Seriously I would like to know…
No dooode you totally blew the demo. That is the reason for the ridicule…using the display profile to "prove" that sRGB and ARGB are different is ignorant. Try it yourself…take an image in ARGB and do a Convert to Profile to sRGB…what do you see? Almost no difference…why? Because Photoshop (and Lightroom) are pretty good at transforming color (and sRGB is the most you can see unless you are using a wide gamut display–which I suspect you aren't using). What you think you proved is a total red herring…(read my comment regarding using the beta sRGB and Perceptual rendering intent).
To the moderators, please review your TOS, because I feel like a lot of these potshots in this thread violates it.
You're new around here huh bud…(the 1 post count is a dead giveaway). Grow a thick skin if you want to live in LuLa waters (and don't cry to daddy cause he don't care). Actually, in reading the thread, I think you've received now where near the ridicule you deserve…but I'll try to take a more Buddhist approach and just say you are very much in need of some help and assistance to grasp a better understanding of the issues.
I don't disagree with the premise that if you don't know what you are doing, use sRGB…but you could have gotten that across in 15 seconds (without the faulty hand waving). It would have been useful to actually do some education of the real issues instead of spreading FUD. For that, you are being castigated with cause.
-
Gary Fong:
You might be a successfull business man and your products look nice (I cannot comment on them since I have not used them yet) but the videos and especially the following comment:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum. Why do people who know nothing about photography try to act like experts?
Just show that you are wrong about color management. Continuing with your defensive attitude with the expert audience of this forum (don't count me as an expert) can only damage your reputation.
Regards,
-
Hi,
Well, more like if you, your buyer, your printer or anyone else involved doesn't know about colour management, use sRGB.
On the other side, if you printer doesn't manage colours he may also loose a lot of other points. Color management allows prints to judged on screen, called softproofing, but with improper color management that information is lost.
There is a change right now, with 4k monitors comes a new much wider colour gamut, so some screens are sRGB and some much wider gamut, so correct tagging of the images are more important than ever.
Best regards
Erik
Correct, but here is why: he got the message* right, but the explanation wrong. He is thus afraid that if he accepts that his explanation is wrong, his message will be seen as wrong too, so he is fighting for the explanation to save the message.
* The message (to his audience) being: "If you do not know what you are doing, use sRGB... if you do know, use Adobe RGB by all means."
-
I finally watched the video in question to see what all the fuss is about.
I have to agree with the consensus that trying to solve a misunderstanding by simplifying things to the point of plain inaccuracy is, to put it mildly, crazy.
As one with a solid, and hopefully still growing, grasp of colour management and also one who does teach on the subject I cannot agree to limiting the colour gamut on input because the output gamut is limited in some way. I spend a lot of time teaching people not to limit the gamut of an image on input into Lightroom, ACR, or Photoshop or whatever other image editing software one is using but rather to use the largest gamut that is rational. In most cases this is ProPhotoRGB - especially if one is shooting RAW. If I shot JPEGS then I would probably use AdobeRGB.
Whether the gamut of the monitor that one is viewing images for editing purposes is very limited (sRGB) or somewhat limited (AdobeRGB or an approximate thereof) is absolutely neither here nor there.
The place to limit the gamut of an image is at the output stage, sRGB for nearly all electronic viewing devices and as large as possible gamut for printing (my printer can reproduce a colour gamut that is arguably a bit larger than AdobeRGB but some printers do less).
The explanation of how the gamut differs between sRGB and AdobeRGB is not just wrong but mischievous. Check the 3D gamut plots of the two colourspaces - in this case a picture literally speaks a thousand words. This kind of misinformation can totally torpedo future attempts to teach colour management appropriately.
In broadest terms the proposal that using sRGB for output (print or screen) has certain merit for beginners but that is not the end of the story.
Learning colour management and softproofing images is the correct way forward.
This is the way for any photographer to get excellent colour and excellent colour reproduction.
Frankly Gary Fong's video, by not even addressing any real colour management principles, is to put it diplomatically, counterproductive.
Tony Jay
-
Gary,
When you post a video that is so utterly, hopelessly incorrect then you're going to get a bit of ridicule on any forum, and certainly this one, particularly when your video is linked to a commercial operation.
It's quite common for people to say things that are slightly incorrect about colour, and people often give poor or even misleading analogies. But your video isn't even close. It completely misrepresents the nature of colour spaces and colour gamuts. Worse than that: when people pointed it out your mistake, you simply dug in and refused to admit that you could be wrong.
You posted irrelevant references to colour space definitions: these are correct, but do not prove your point because you have not understood how colour spaces are represented in RGB values in coming to your mistaken view of gamut clipping.
Andrew Rodney has written what is probably still the best book on colour management for photographers - he really knows what he's talking about - and all you do it nit-pick his replies.
Jeff Schewe may have a sharp tongue at times, but he also knows his stuff.
If you're smart, you might want take note, for there's none so blind as those that will not see.
-
Just out of curiosity I viewed the two linked videos, briefly. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. He is obviously preaching to new comers to the industry but he's not doing them any favors. The likes of the Lula community are not the ones to take him very seriously.
As for his light sphere container it certainly does scatter light very well in all directions (if that's what you want :D).
-
It is of course, best to have as much data as possible for future options later. What if you are a newer photographer that switches the menu function from a to s? That person will experience duller colors in a majority of common web browsers and wet process output. Undeniable.
If the person goes back to sRGB, the colors go back to what they had. Undeniable.
If the person shoots in AdobeRGB, or parses to it, they have to convert to sRGB if it is going on the web or wet print at most places. That's undeniable also. Many, many of those people are trying to enjoy photography and will never pick up LR. So before you go and say, "well, then, let them fry" remember that people want to love photography. A camera is a major investment in this economy. Discouraging from the get-go by telling them for all images, do the A to S conversion for the uses most people do. I feel as if they go there, there will be a whole lot of you arguing about the simplicity of their workflow.
I deal with the photography public. I spoke at the Salon De La Photo last year in Paris to tens of thousands of photographers. Even with the newest equipment, a praciticaly unanimous buying public existed within the sRGB workflow sphere. Someone here was right - I could've said in 15 seconds the sRGB vs AdobeRGB mantra - if sticking to web or wet process, use s. Inkjet, 4 color press, sophisticated lab equipment, capture in A. But do not capture in A and go to S. Simple message.
People do not remember without explanations that have to be simple for the newest student. Yes, this bristles with the people who spend a lot of time teaching about color management (seems like this is a forum for instructors, if I'm not wrong) yet have achieved a level that most people don't and won't have the time for, and - undeniably - would be happy enough with straight sRGB to web (high majority of photo enthusiasts) and the next smaller group would actually have prints made at an sRGB-RA/4 system - get this - not knowing how to submit a file with a matching profile before giving it to the lab.
Mostly, it's the following is undeniable. Photographers en masse express in sRGB down the chain and those would benefit by not switching their camera to AdobeRGB - which is what this video addresses in a simple way using metaphors like "muffin top" and "wide rainbows" as well as changing a monitor display profile to show color clipping. It was meant to be simple, and at the beginning of the video I said this is one of the most hotly debated topics, so I knew to leave the comments in for people to sample what happens here, in DPReview, at conventions, etc.
The elite are unhappy that their refined techniques are not adopted by all to produce the greatest results. The neophytes will never make an AdobeRGB print or purchase a wider gamut display. They will get very acceptable results with sRGB. And, by the way, most of the younger photographers or newer ones wind up buying Instagram-looking photoshop actions and torch the midtones anyway. So much for your enhanced color detail.
I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic. I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better. At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.
We plan on mentioning this thread, and some of your names and opinions as topics of discussion. Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them. Not what was better. I make that clear in the beginning.
My team is very excited to do our interview/documentary on this dispute. Your contributions are valuable when the discussion is just this - a discussion.
-
I deal with the photography public. I spoke at the Salon De La Photo last year in Paris to tens of thousands of photographers. Even with the newest equipment, a praciticaly unanimous buying public existed within the sRGB workflow sphere. Someone here was right - I could've said in 15 seconds the sRGB vs AdobeRGB mantra - if sticking to web or wet process, use s. Inkjet, 4 color press, sophisticated lab equipment, capture in A. But do not capture in A and go to S. Simple message...
Mostly, it's the following is undeniable. Photographers en masse express in sRGB down the chain and those would benefit by not switching their camera to AdobeRGB -
WOW! Tens of thousands of photographers... practically unanimous buying public... undeniable... photographers en masse... etc. Golly-gee, how can you argue with all that?
Back home in Texas, when I was a kid, we had boots with what were called roping heels: high heels with a deep taper so that they could really dig into the dirt when you had a calf on the end of your rope. You just couldn't be dragged anywhere by that calf. Now it seems to me, Gary, with that calf being a metaphor for accuracy, you are surely wearing some serious roping heels on your boots.
-
The elite are unhappy that their refined techniques are not adopted by all to produce the greatest results.
Mr. Fong, there are no "elites" here, just people who ask questions, want to improve their skills, ask for critiques, and share accurate information. There are a few who go to the mat to defend their premise, but they are not elite. Some have authored popular books, some are highly successful photographers, and a lot are wading into the water of digital photography.
The reason you're getting blowback is because the information in your video is wrong. And when noobs watch it, they will be misled. This is an egregious error on your part, and you deserve to take heat for it.
The neophytes will never make an AdobeRGB print or purchase a wider gamut display. They will get very acceptable results with sRGB.
You assume that the neophytes don't desire a better post-production system, and I think this is a false assumption. As noobs get more involved in photography, they naturally become curious about a better workflow. They may not buy an Eizo monitor and Canon iPF 8400, but they are all curious about the state of the art.
-
Do not confuse photographers with camera owners.
No matter if you tried to give a simple explanation, if you say: "Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum" you are clueless about color management
I give you that for the novice it is better to stay in sRGB, but what you are trying to do is to keep people in the ignorance
Several forum members have tried to correct you, some polite others less polite, but your arrogance and pride are beyond belief
I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better. At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.
This will really be a disservice to them
Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them. Not what was better. I make that clear in the beginning.
Who do you think you are to decide what is better for someone else? let's them make that decision, after they learn. Keep using sRGB until you really understand color management and can make informed decisions? Yes, but spreading nonsense and misleading information is not the right thing to do.
-
... You assume that the neophytes don't desire a better post-production system, and I think this is a false assumption. As noobs get more involved in photography, they naturally become curious about a better workflow. They may not buy an Eizo monitor and Canon iPF 8400, but they are all curious about the state of the art.
Yours is just as false.
-
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says. For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it." These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting. LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists. Many go beyond just the mainstream programs and use a variety of plugins and experiment with other software to get optimal results from the images we capture. We can all chuckle at the errors in the presentation but at the end of the day, the Internet will reign supreme in terms of allowing anyone the freedom to make a fool of him/herself.
-
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says. For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it." These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting. LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists...
+1
-
I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic. I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better. At the end of this discourse, I'll hope to display (clearly) to the non-specialty viewer where the lines are drawn, and how big the difference is in output using wide to narrow, vs wide to wide gamut workflows.
We plan on mentioning this thread, and some of your names and opinions as topics of discussion. Remember, the aim of this video was to address, for the uninitiated photographer what was better for them. Not what was better. I make that clear in the beginning.
My team is very excited to do our interview/documentary on this dispute. Your contributions are valuable when the discussion is just this - a discussion.
Not much doubt now that this was "troll marketing".
-
A couple of years ago, Canon had a promotion for their printers, where they offered a free 8x10 if you send them a file. They said you can send them sRGB or aRGB. Knowing, at the time, that "sRGB is good for web, aRGB better for inkjets," I sent them aRGB. See what I got back:
-
If you look at the context of the video, I am explaining why people find that as soon as they switch their cameras to the AdobeRGB color space, their colors appear lifeless and dull.
That is simply wrong!
In the beginning of the video, one of the first things that I express is, "AdobeRGB is superior - IF you have the equipment that can exploit it". I then go on to explain that the majority of the wet process printers (RA-4) and web browsers are all within the narrow gamut of sRGB.
That too is pathetically wrong. You seem to have totally missed an important step known as converting to an output color space. Pretty shocking!
For those of you who do not know my background, I was a professional wedding photographer for 20 years, and shot over 1,000 weddings.
Bla,bla and more. What does that have to do with your inaccuracies and misunderstandings as presented in the two video's about color management?
I know a lot of professional photographers who understand and can explain basic color management and the topic you butchered in your two videos. You sir are not one!
In less than a week that your new video has been up, there have been more than a dozen different people, on YouTube and here that have told you the content, message and method you used is wrong. You've argued with each. One was actually a software engineer! But heck, you're a professiona photographer; BFD! You're wrong. You haven't had a single peer come to your side to suggest you got the videos right, not one. How do you explain that Gray? Dozens point out your flaws, most being patient and doing nothing more than trying to explain the correct fundamentals and you get pissy, insulting and hostile. For the rest of the LuLa gang, Gary found a piece I did as well as Michael's on ETTR and got it totally wrong, accused me of suggesting people should underexpose. When I told him he has issues comprehending English, he pulls out the race card, calling me a racist! That's how pitifully silly his arguments are. Talk about a car wreck.
So when Andrew Rodney went on the attack, accusing me of not knowing color management, and then going on to literally say on his Google+ page that my misunderstandings were possibly because I was having problems reading english (an obviously cheap and racist remark), I could not be ok with this. Not only is he being unfair and petulant, he is accusing me of a lot of wrongdoing. He accuses me of trying to mislead people for financial gain.
You were not attacked. You were told by myself and others you got it wrong. Anyone who wishes can go to your video site and see the progression of posts from myself and others and how we initially tried to help you, told you not to take it personally, referenced other data points to asisit you in getting the facts straight. You would have none of it and you sir were the attacker. It's absurd that you would say otherwise but that's your MO. It's rather pathetic. As seen here, let alone on the YouTube site, you have a terrible time comprehending the written word.
It is not of any benefit to me if people shoot sRGB or AdobeRGB. I do not sell educational products about color management like Mr. Rodney does.
Wrong again. But why let facts get in the way of your dribble.
Despite the cheap shots I've seen here about my "tupperware", my products are the market leader, are carefully researched and tested, have a ten year history of use worldwide acceptance. You'll see my products in use at press events, magazine shoots and by NASA. Jay Meisel, Greg Gorman and many other legendary photographers use my lighting accessories. My Lightsphere was named Popular Photography's Product of the Year in 2010. I have had the good fortune of, well, good fortune, so I don't need to make money off of misleading people for whatever motive in misleading them about color management.
NONE of that has anything to do with the misinformation about color management Gary, none!
I had a lengthy phone conversation with Will Crockett today, who originally was poked at the beginning of this thread. I have known of Will Crockett's deep knowledge of color printing because he was giving nationwide tours for FujiFilm back when I purchased my $240,000 Fuji Frontier. The management at Fuji hand picked Will because of his knowledge and popular method of teaching. He gave me quite the education of Andrew Rodney, and we will be doing a Skype video to clear up the confusion stirred up by Mr. Rodney (and others) for a YouTube video.
Great, two legends of color management misinformation. I can't wait to see it.
Mr. Rodney is critical of my neophyte misunderstanding of color, yet I know it very well.
You don't show it!
Mr. Rodney is not a professional photographer, and AdobeRGB did not take over the sRGB world in print volume worldwide, as Adobe wished it would.
Again, that I once was and am no longer making a living making images has nothing to do with your misinformation of color management. I know you want to make it about me. Based on the dozens and dozens of posts here and on your two video's from people telling you that you are wrong seems to continuously escape you.
I am super thankful to Will Crockett for giving me the run through about Rodney Andrew. Yes my responses have been very blunt, but it's because it is really something to see this kind of criticism when it is unfounded and unwarranted. And I am dedicated to bringing out clarity, and truth, especially about the history and background of Rodney Andrew.
Gary, you clearly have no idea what peer review is or looks like. That's kind of a shame. But the biggest shame is the thousands of people you say you've taught color to who are getting such terrible advise and teachings. You should not be proud of that achievement, just the opposite!
-
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says. For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it." These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting. LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists. Many go beyond just the mainstream programs and use a variety of plugins and experiment with other software to get optimal results from the images we capture. We can all chuckle at the errors in the presentation but at the end of the day, the Internet will reign supreme in terms of allowing anyone the freedom to make a fool of him/herself.
Alan, I just recommend that you don't fall for Gary's strawman. Few, if any, critics of that video are arguing against a recommendation of sRGB for beginners or people who aren't interested in color management. If Gary had just stopped with that there would be no controversy here at all. The problem is that he goes on for another 5 minutes with unnecessary, misleading, and incorrect explanations that are only going to confuse people. It's not even necessary if, as he says, he is going for a "keep it simple" explanation.
Also be sensitive to his false dichotomy where he presents the situation as "his simplified explanation" vs. "a mind-numbing complex one". This again, is not the issue. The issue is that he is giving a "simple but incorrect" explanation when there are any number of ways to explain just as simply but also correctly.
All of these little tricks (strawmen, false dichotomies, mis-representation of what others have wrote, etc.) are the classic signs of a troll.
-
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says.
There is, no question. That's not the topic or issue. He completely got the facts of color spaces wrong and hugely diluted that message in the process.
If two wrongs don't make a right, does half a dozen wrongs and one right make a good video? Is that fair to the audience? If other peers point out the wrongs and the presenter absolutely refuses to fix the mistakes and worse, argues and belittles those who are hoping to clarify the presenters understanding, is that OK because the diluted message has a bit of merit? I don't think so Alan.
-
A couple of years ago, Canon had a promotion for their printers, where they offered a free 8x10 if you send them a file. They said you can send them sRGB or aRGB. Knowing, at the time, that "sRGB is good for web, aRGB better for inkjets," I sent them aRGB. See what I got back:
The fact that somebody downstream from me might make a mistake with my files because they don't know what they're doing, is not an argument for me to throw away my own goals for rich, accurate colour. It's an argument for me to find better service providers to work with.
Others have suggested what Gary Fong should have said was something like "if you don't know what you're doing, use sRGB". But one reply above got it more correct -- "if you don't know what you're doing and nobody else who works with your images knows what they're doing either, you should all use sRGB". My variation on this might be something like "if you don't know what you're doing, use Adobe RGB and find service providers who do know what they're doing". This is what I teach my students, and it works great. Plus at any time they have questions, I can do like Gary Fong suggests and show the evidence why it works, based on real-world examples.
I've known enough about the purpose of capturing good colour at source, vs. dealing with lower fidelity output devices downstream, that from the very beginning of my digital photography I've never seen the rationale for capturing sRGB. That would be like a recording studio saying "we know at some point that low bit-rate budget CD's of this music will be produced, and probably some people will record live performances on something and make really low quality mix tapes available. So let's just trash our high fidelity studio masters and go straight to cassette tape for all our production work." Or the video equivalent.
It's a disservice to provide confusing, misleading and incorrect information to viewers under the otherwise perfectly fine goal of helping them understand how and when to worry about certain technical matters like colour spaces.
Unfortunately, these discussion threads have become very muddled and argumentative, and the likelihood of anything positive happening now seems extremely low. The uninformed viewers are the ones who will lose out because they'll form a poor understanding of getting good colour, and how to make good future decisions about good colour when it matters more to them than it perhaps does now...
-
I am super thankful to Will Crockett for giving me the run through about Rodney Andrew.
And I am dedicated to bringing out clarity, and truth, especially about the history and background of Rodney Andrew.
English is my first language, and I can read it just fine.
The above text would suggest otherwise.
-
The fact that somebody downstream from me might make a mistake with my files because they don't know what they're doing, is not an argument for me to throw away my own goals for rich, accurate colour. It's an argument for me to find better service providers to work with...
You are missing my (and Mr. Fong's) point entirely. The point being: by sending aRGB you are taking a gamble that the printer will know what they are doing. And if CANON, having a PROMOTION, aimed to demonstrate the quality of their printers, specifically offering to accept aRGB, can make such a mistake, what chances are left for ordinary labs? Apparently, way too many people are experiencing that same mistake, otherwise that would not become a topic of discussion.
I print my 20x30 in a lab that specifically asks for sRGB. Why do I deal with them then? Would I not want to be rather dealing with a pro lab that can send me their printer profiles to softproof first? Sure I would! But guess what: such a lab is about 2-3 time more expensive. And frankly, my printouts are just fine with sRGB.
A question for experts: how many real-world photographs, not theoretical models, actually exceed sRGB gamut? And if they do, by how much? And would you notice? And who would notice? And if you notice, would you care? Would most people care? Would common people (non-photographers) care?
We are all elitists and measurbators here (including myself). We look down on those who do not use RAW, or ProPhoto RGB, display and print profiling devices, wide-gamut monitors, etc., as unwashed masses, worthy of our disdain and contempt. Guess what: those people actually have way more fun and joy with their photography than we do. We can't sleep after discovering a speck of dust bunny we failed to remove, obsess over CA we didn't notice, fret over a blown highlight, etc. In the meantime, "unwashed masses" are having fun, enjoying special moments they captured, however imperfect.
This is the fate we chose for ourselves. However, like all religions, we insist on spreading our views onto others. We have Jesuits and Conquistadors, Holly Warriors and Inquisition, who will spread by force (e.g., internet mocking) the gospel of "proper" photography technique to the unfaithful.
There is, however, a number of professional and famous, photographers who shoot mostly JPEG (gasp!) and sRGB (gasp!!). It is a choice, people! Their choice. It works for them (and millions of the "unwashed"), so let them be. There is a room for everyone in this wide world of photography. And for different views and choices. No need to shove ours onto others.
-
A question for experts: how many real-world photographs, not theoretical models, actually exceed sRGB gamut? And if they do, by how much? And would you notice? And who would notice? And if you notice, would you care? Would most people care? Would common people (non-photographers) care?
Each one that has a blue sky. And yes, it's really easy to notice the difference, even in case of c-print (the bigger the print, the more obvious difference).
-
A question for experts: how many real-world photographs, not theoretical models, actually exceed sRGB gamut?
I would say just about every daylight outdoor photograph unless you are shooting an extremely monochromatic scene.
-
You are missing my (and Mr. Fong's) point entirely.
I don't think so. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that people who mishandle images, through color management mishaps or otherwise can produce poor results. Gary's simple point that, if you don't understand anything about color spaces, use sRGB has merit. HOW he provided the message, filled with misinformation is the key point of this thread and what I believe you and most certainly Gary don't accept.
If you provide me with an sRGB image and I view it on my wide gamut display without a color managed app, it looks poor. So with the logic of 'just use sRGB', in this context, sRGB is the problem. That's rather silly since one would expect someone who's gone out of his way to purchase a wide gamut display would understand this could be an issue (and yet, there are posts from people doing just that).
Do we expect that wide gamut displays may or will not get less expensive and more popular in the future? If they do, will the 'just use sRGB' message need to be corrected?
Bottom line isn't which color space is 'better' or what you should use. The issue is the two video's Gary produced are technically incorrect in terms of basic color science. Those issues were reported to Gary in an attempt for corrections and clarification. Gary refuses to expect his mistakes and worse, tells others they are wrong. That's a disservice to his audience and perspective audience. His heart might be in the right place although that's highly questionable considering his refusal to accept the facts let alone correct them. So what is his motivation? I don't know. I don't really care. I do know his message is diluted and filled with inaccuracies. And that's the bottom line in terms of this topic, there isn't any defence for it!
-
A question for experts: how many real-world photographs, not theoretical models, actually exceed sRGB gamut?
Lots (I know that's not a statically acceptable answer). Did you not see my video on gamut where I show a number of such examples?
Let's say it's only 25% which I think is probably very low. Would you be willing to clip data you could capture and could output when you don't have to?
If you understand what sRGB is based upon, you'll soon see many real world images don't fall into that simple shape for a number of reasons.
Why do you suppose photographers capture raw and why many raw converters use a vastly larger processing color space than sRGB?
-
We are all elitists and measurbators here (including myself). We look down on those who do not use RAW, or ProPhoto RGB, display and print profiling devices, wide-gamut monitors, etc., as unwashed masses, worthy of our disdain and contempt.
We all don't and shouldn't. There is absolutely nothing wrong shooting JPEG instead of raw IF you know why you want to go that route. News and sports photographers have very legitimate reasons for not shooting raw. But if someone produced a video and said: "Shooting JPEG gives you more data to work with and a better image than raw", I'll bet a lot of other's would have issues with that technically incorrect statement. Yes, if you gave someone who had never processed a raw file such data and a converter they didn't have a clue how to use, the JPEG would very likely be a better appearing image. Is their lack of experience using the converter a fair way to convey that JPEG is better? And the statement about more data would be blatantly wrong! This is exactly what Gary has done in his video. Don't separate the correct message with all the technically flawed delivery Gary provided in two videos. Wrong is wrong, even if the underlying message has merit. Worse, to ignore and argue with dozens of people who correctly pointed out the errors of the delivery is kind of inexcusable.
-
Do we expect that wide gamut displays may or will not get less expensive and more popular in the future? If they do, will the 'just use sRGB' message need to be corrected?
I'm sure there will be virtually no "narrow gamut / sRGB" displays in near future. ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 assumes a gamut much wider than AdobeRGB as TV broadcast standard, the amount of consumer mobile devices and TV with wide gamut (GBr LED, quantum dots, OLED, laser projectors) is constantly increasing...
-
Hi everybody. I saw a direct link to this forum, and saw your comments, and thought I would address them.
Hi Gary, thanks for the good attitude of coming here to talk politely.
First, congrats on your long career, I have no doubt your success are results of passion and hard work.
Reading your message explain how you are experienced with color and color management.
You are experienced as a user, tuning parameters, sharing recommendations based on your perception.
A mistake made here is that you confuse experience with knowledge.
Unfortunately, your perception of how color management work and and what color space are is inconsistent with the science, maths and algorithms powering the standards and its numerous implementations.
Also, reading your replies on YouTube made me sad.
My fiancée is a professional and successful YouTube reviewer and I learned through her how to interact with an audience and also how not to, and I'm genuinely concerned with your initial reactions that over time this YouTube thing will become just miserable to you, especially if you read and moderate comments directly.
Believe me I'm speaking from experience here.
My recommendation would be to simply put offline the Adobe RGB vs sRGB videos, they're factually wrong.
It's no big deal, professional YouTubers put down videos all the time, and re-upload new ones that check out with facts and current state of knowledge.
Unlike Vimeo, you can't replace the content of a video on YouTube, the only choice is to put offline and redo. In this context, it really is the only thing to do and it will help you grow as an educator as well.
Then please continue interacting with experts in a field, that might actually be good at what they do and not so self-proclaimed.
In order to build trust with your audience, I'd also recommend as you have ties to Sony to publish an ethic statement, and avoid naming product presentations "reviews"
A pretty good example to follow here IMHO is Philip Bloom.
He has been working with camera manufacturers, on paid jobs and even promotional shoots. But he discloses that clearly and actually keeps his complete freedom of speech as he reviews stuff.
-
This:
So I intimately know color management…
and this (from here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU)):
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum.
are simply incompatible statements. The second quote can't even be called a misunderstanding of color management — it is a TOTAL absence of understanding the most basic tenants of color management.
Gary, you need to swallow your pride, stop considering yourself such an expert that you don't need to listen to or learn from people who know what they're talking about, stop being so defensive, stop confusing success in one area with expertise in another, and go back to the basics and learn the foundations of color science. If you don't want to do that, you need to stop "educating" people on this subject. You do them a huge disservice. If they want to go from your teaching on to further understanding of the subject, they will need to unlearn you explanations before they can move on.
I'm not sure you are sincerely interested in what anyone has to say, but just in case you are, here are a couple sincerely offered suggestions:
Get rid of the wide rainbow explanation of color gamuts.
This doesn't accurately describe how color gamuts work and leads to HUGE misunderstanding. AdobeRGB doesn't include a wider range of wavelengths on a one dimensional spectrum. It is a larger volume in a three dimensional space. The xy chromaticity diagram, while not a perfect representation of color gamuts, is a much better way to compare gamuts. It's not hard for even a beginner to understand — one triangle is bigger that another — not hard. It has the added benefit of being the way most of the world compares color gamuts. When your student looks at other sources they will encounter this diagram often. Looking at a comparison between AdobeRGB and sRGB on this diagram you will see that actually, yes, cyans and greens can easily be clipped.
Don't explain color gamuts by switching monitor profiles to working spaces like sRGB
You and I may know that you shouldn't set your monitor to sRGB, but it is a commonly occurring misunderstanding among people starting out. I frequently see people who want to work in a color space like sRGB and think the way to do that is by setting their monitor to sRGB. There's never a good reason to set your monitor's space to working space. If you want to show what happens when the color numbers from wide space like AdobeRGB are interpreted as though they were in a small space like sRGB, just assign the sRGB profile to an image. This is a much simpler and more accurate way to show the phenomenon of duller colors coming from a wide space to small space. It would also be an opportunity to show what happens in a color managed environment by comparing the results of assigning a space vs converting to a space. When you convert from profile to profile, which is what will happen in a color managed workflow, you will see that using AdobeRGB doesn't cause dull colors in the way it does when you work in a non-color managed workflow and go from large to small spaces.
Just avoid talking about the number of colors in a gamut
I left a comment about this on the Youtube page. You didn't have a coherent argument for why you thought I was wrong but offered this to your audience:
"Folks, this is a prime example of someone who knows absolutely nothing about this topic, yet spouting off like he knows. He doesn't know the topic."
I was (and still am) right about this. But it doesn't matter — for the point you are trying to make and only muddies the waters. Just avoid it altogether—if you want to compare color spaces, just use terms like 'wider' and 'greater volume', 'larger ranger', etc. Talking about either the number of colors, or the amount of information doesn't clarify anything and will likely lead to confusing inaccuracies.
Be honest
It's a wonderful ability to be able to explain technical subjects to a general audience. People who are great at this, like Richard Feynman, are able to simplify subjects without intruding inaccuracies and offer simplified explanations that make it easy to move on to more complete understanding. It's more expedient to say AdobeRGB causes dull colors than it is to say using a non-color managed workflow can cause dull colors in certain situations, but the later is true and the former is only half-true. In a non-managed workflow going from a large gamut to small gamut, such as going from AdobeRGB to a iPad without conversion does result in duller colors. But going from a small space to sRGB to a large one like a wide-monitor has the opposite effect in a non managed workflow. If you are honestly trying to help your audience build a foundation of knowledge, you need to find a way to explain both these phenomena. If you want to do this, you need to be honest about your own understanding of the fundamentals, and it's not clear that you are.
Based on my previous encounter with you, I suspect you will not take any of this to heart, but it is offered sincerely, not necessarily for your benefit, but for the benefit of your audience for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
-
... Did you not see my video on gamut where I show a number of such examples?...
Andrew, which video? Link?
-
Andrew, which video? Link?
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q
You may want to fast forward to 17:44 into the presentation to see the examples of images and color gamut, the first part of the show I'm sure you fully undertand.
-
But do not capture in A and go to S. Simple message.
Wrong again. In fact if you’re telling non raw shooters how to setup the camera, capture Adobe RGB (1998), convert to sRGB when one needs sRGB. Can’t go the other way (it’s pointless).
Yes, this bristles with the people who spend a lot of time teaching about color management (seems like this is a forum for instructors, if I'm not wrong)…
That is indeed wrong. What bristles people here is blatantly incorrect information. And not just here, there are prime examples on your two color management videos.
Photographers en masse express in sRGB down the chain and those would benefit by not switching their camera to AdobeRGB - which is what this video addresses in a simple way using metaphors like "muffin top" and "wide rainbows" as well as changing a monitor display profile to show color clipping.
The metaphors and examples used are wrong, simple as that. Many others besides just me have told you this.
It was meant to be simple, and at the beginning of the video I said this is one of the most hotly debated topics, so I knew to leave the comments in for people to sample what happens here, in DPReview, at conventions, etc.
It is only hotly debated by people who refuse to understand and discuss basic color management like yourself. Those like the vast majority in this post understand the topic and disagree with you.
The elite are unhappy that their refined techniques are not adopted by all to produce the greatest results.
Elites, really? This is part of the stand up comic act right?
And, by the way, most of the younger photographers or newer ones wind up buying Instagram-looking photoshop actions and torch the midtones anyway. So much for your enhanced color detail.
Comment has absolutely nothing to do with color management or the misunderstandings expressed in your two color management videos! Why go there except to misdirect?
I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic. I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better.
OK so you are going to keep the original incorrect misinformed videos up, and you are going to make yet another comic attempt without peer review? You think that’s a good idea Gary?
Tell you what, you build the video, keep it private but post it here first for peer review. I'll even promise to keep out of it if that’s what it takes to get you to submit it for review. IF you really do care about accuracy on the topic, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by letting a few folks here give you an opinion of the technical correctness of the topic. I can't see you doing this but I'd love to be proven wrong (something you've struggled to do for days now).
We plan on mentioning this thread, and some of your names and opinions as topics of discussion.
Great, can’t wait.
-
I finally watched the video to see what all the fuss was about. Now I'm certainly no expert on color management, but I have picked up a bit from the likes of Andrew and Jeff and Eric Chan over the years.
The essence of Gary's argument seems to me to be this:
1. sRGB has a much shorter spectrum ("rainbow") than does AdobeRGB.
2. Gary seems to think the way one converts from sRGB to AdobeRGB is by chopping off the ends of the AdobeRGB rainbow (so I wonder why doesn't that just leave you with a few yellows and a bit of green??)
3. His comparison "shows" that AdobeRGB gives muddy colors in an image converted from bright colors in sRGB.
4. His conclusion seems to be that sRGB has brighter colors than AdobeRGB.
If Gary's "syllogism" is correct, it follows that the shorter the spectrum, the better the color rendition. So obviously sRGB is still much too wide. Just think how bright your colors would be if you used a color space that was only, say, 10% as wide as sRGB!!!
Fantastic!!!
So I guess the ideal would be a color space that only has two wavelengths in it (I suppose a single wavelength wouldn't let you distinguish between colors at all).
Have I understood this correctly, guys? ???
-
So the pursuit for the perfect editing space has no end, as you can always choose two wavelengths that are closer and closer to each other.
I just can't wait to see that Crockett & Fong "Spectral explorers and lightwave surfers" video!
-
I think you are all missing the point here ;)
I think that we all, including Mr. Fong, agree that:
1. sRGB is a narrow gamut color space
2. Adobe RGB is a wide gamut color space
However we see a color space as a 3D space, where Adobe RGB expands above sRGB mostly in the greens and cyans as seen in the pic below. Please compare the smaller sRGB triangle (blue) to the bigger Adobe RGB triangle (yellow). If capturing and post-processing in the wider Adobe RGB color space and then posting for web or printing in e-labs etc. one needs only to convert the file from Adobe RGB to sRGB by doing this simple Photoshop command Edit - Convert to profile ... No colors from sRGB are lost, of course, just the colors that exist in Adobe RGB but not also in sRGB are translated into sRGB (more color information is squeezed into less color information). Please note that for the purpose of this simple illustration a 2D picture is used, having 2 axis, x for width and y for height. The "dimensions" of course are Red, Green and Blue.
But, it is Mr. Fong's theory that color space is not 3D but 2D instead, where Adobe RGB expands beyond sRGB because there are more color nuances in Adobe RGB than in sRGB which are equally distributed (therefore, more reds, yellows, greens, cyans, blues and magentas). Please see picture from his video below, which only has one axis, the x for width. So, if capturing and post-processing in the wider Adobe RGB color space and then posting for web or printing in e-labs etc. one will loose the reds and the magentas because the web browser, e-lab printer etc. will clip these colors, because they fall out of the sRGB gamut.
However, and please listen very carefully, because this is a groundbreaking discovery in color theory, with this procedure one will get in his or her picture (on the web or in print) the colors that don't exist in sRGB color space! Wow!
So, according to Mr. Fong's new color theory if you want more color nuances and are willing to sacrifice some reds and magentas capture in Adobe RGB and print in sRGB. You will gain more greens, more yellows, more cyans, more blues, more of everything, except for reds and magentas.
However, from the 5 minute video from Mr. Fong I did not get the info how this is possible. So, I would like to use this opportunity and ask Mr. Fong to elaborate on this topic. My question is "How are the colors that do not exist in sRGB able to go from Adobe RGB to sRGB if you shoot in Adobe RGB and print in sRGB?" I have marked this in the attached picture from Mr. Fong's video (not scientifically, but by naked eye).
Remember, we are all missing the point here ;)
-
Wrong. I never said that sRGB had more data. In fact, in the beginning, I say AdobeRGB is better provided you have the equipment that exploits it. The balance of the video shows video clipping in a simple way, using metaphors like "wide vs narrow" rainbows, muffin tops, etc. I address the photography enthusiast who wants to appreciate and enjoy photography.
What happens is the neophyte reads information that doesn't apply to them, "AdobeRGB is better" (which I said in the beginning of the video, it is) but the vast - vast majority of photographers JPG and sRGB. The wide rainbow is a metaphor for a wide gamut being spilled onto equipment that can only express a limited width, thus the cropped colors. Would it have been more techy had I split the rainbow up and move the colors around so the clipped colors would be at the ends? Or make a bump in the parts of AdobeRGB that has more color information?
The challenge is this. In five minutes - give a majority of the people working information that they can use right away.
The video I am doing with Will Crockett will address just this. How such confusion spills out into the search engines, how sRGB vs AdobeRGB is such a hotly debated topic (as is JPG vs RAW) and, additionally (this is inspired by Rodney) how the elitist 'measurbators' (I loved that word!) spout out anger like this which results in people who want to enjoy photography and be more discouraged.
There can be no debate that if you shoot in AdobeRGB and share via web browser, or make wet process lab prints, you would have to convert your aRGB file to sRGB first or suffer muted colors.
Nowhere in the file did I say sRGB had more data. The illustration shows how sRGB compresses all of the colors available to the naked eye into a space with less space between colors (narrow gamut).
-
excellent post
-
Here's another way of seeing my explanation. It's like saying, "you can shoot video in 4k, and it is better - provided you have equipment to express it... if you are going to upload to web, or view your videos in HDTV or smaller, shoot in 1080." So the mixed crowd of enthusiasts says, "huh? What's 4k? What's 1080p?" So you have to use metaphors to help the most people understand.
Then a bunch of people go, hey - this is wrong information. 4K is always better. You do not get more information on 1080p! This is misinformation! Why not always shoot in 4K so you can always have the option of both? Of course you would have to convert each video each time, but it's always better (true). Most people don't have equipment for 4k, and the people who do, I'm sure they love it and covet the improved viewing experience. Some might even get mad that other people don't use 4k equipment, or, suggest that it's ok to use.
-
We are going to be doing a series of "Adobe vs sRGB" videos. On Monday, we will be photographing images in AdobeRGB and sRGB and putting them through a pro lab in town, both images staying within their respective color spaces. After the prints are made, we will be placing these images on a table, and asking passersby which one looks better. Are there any other questions you suggest that I ask? Any other criteria you would like (in advance) before we do this video? I would honestly like to put this topic to a definitive result, but I'm sure there will be some of you who would say that the results are skewed, and I'd like to know what you need in advance.
This will be the general public. I will ask them which has better, or richer colors. Is there anything that you would require to make this real-world test not appear "skewed"?
I will also be taking a tally of who prefers which print, A or B. And then put the tally up. Once we have the numbers, I will show the steps required to convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB, the extra steps required.
Look forward to your opinions.
-
Wrong. I never said that sRGB had more data. In fact, in the beginning, I say AdobeRGB is better provided you have the equipment that exploits it. The balance of the video shows video clipping in a simple way, using metaphors like "wide vs narrow" rainbows, muffin tops, etc. I address the photography enthusiast who wants to appreciate and enjoy photography.
Gary.
You are now trying to convince us that you used the metaphor in order to simplify and shorten an explanation.
But what we all understood here I think, is that it is what you actually believed until being corrected.
The concrete proof is the comment where you say Cyans are not being clipped in narrowers gamuts because they're in the center of the rainbow, while arguing with an expert.
So I'm afraid that until you recognize this and insist saying that it's an acceptable way to teach color spaces to the neophytes, it will only damage your credibility.
As your want to be an instructor and.. credibility kind of matters in this field, I would suggest one more time to delete those videos.. because they're so bad and quit trying to cover this up by telling it was intentional.
It's just too late for that, you gave too many elements making impossible to believe you.
I'm sure you learned more about color spaces since as we all tried to explain you how it works and gave you quality sources to read or watch.
So you see it now right?
It really is painful to watch you bury yourself in this.. like: WHY!?
-
The video I am doing with Will Crockett will address just this. How such confusion spills out into the search engines, how sRGB vs AdobeRGB is such a hotly debated topic (as is JPG vs RAW) and, additionally (this is inspired by Rodney) how the elitist 'measurbators' (I loved that word!) spout out anger like this which results in people who want to enjoy photography and be more discouraged.
There can be no debate that if you shoot in AdobeRGB and share via web browser, or make wet process lab prints, you would have to convert your aRGB file to sRGB first or suffer muted colors.
Gary, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is not being hotly debated. Everyone agrees that sRGB has its place, is a good space for people shooting jpegs to share online etc.. It is the space I would recommend my dad set his camera to.
What is being debated is your cockamamie explanation why. It's great that you want to simplify this for people; it's not so great that you use wrong explanations because they're simpler and then fly off the handle and call people idiots when they correct you. It's like me telling you the sky is blue because unicorn piss is blue and lighter than air, so over time has accumulated in the atmosphere. When people call me out I tell them they're idiots because you just look and see that the sky is obviously blue.
-
There can be no debate that if you shoot in AdobeRGB and share via web browser, or make wet process lab prints, you would have to convert your aRGB file to sRGB first or suffer muted colors.
Absolutely false. There is a debate with you on this! More importantly not a single person here or on your video site has agreed with this and other incorrect statements! This kind of statement of 'fact' comes from someone who apparently has never used an ICC color managed application to make a print. One absolutely does NOT have to convert to sRGB from Adobe RGB to make a print! Expect perhaps for people like yourself who don't understand color management and have a history running a lab that have front ends that demand data in a tagged sRGB (and no other color space) and incorrectly think that the printer is an sRGB device. It isn't, no such device exists other than an emissive display.
Nowhere in the file did I say sRGB had more data.
No, in two places in the video, you said Adobe RGB has more colors than sRGB.
At 1:04 you say:
Both colors and the ends of the rainbows are the same (that's wrong Gary).
The difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB is that there are more colors inbetwen.
Here's another way of seeing my explanation. It's like saying, "you can shoot video in 4k, and it is better - provided you have equipment to express it... if you are going to upload to web, or view your videos in HDTV or smaller, shoot in 1080." So the mixed crowd of enthusiasts says, "huh? What's 4k? What's 1080p?" So you have to use metaphors to help the most people understand.
You still don't get the reason so many people are calling you out Gary. Your message has merit! The way it's expressed is technically wrong in so many areas. If you had listened to the voices of reason and fixed the egregiously incorrect language, the video would have been maybe 30 seconds and all you would have to say is "if you don't know anything about color spaces or the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), just use sRGB".
Not a single person who posted on your video comments around the web would have argued or done anything but agreed with you. But how you explained your point is simple color management science fiction. It's wrong. No one has backed you up because what you said was wrong.
You can still delete the video and all the negative comments and create a video expressing your valid message correctly.
You could spend a fraction of the time you wasted arguing with people who called you out and create a video we'd agree with and promote instead of creating a video that's flat out wrong and having all kinds of people around the internet see you are more concerned with defending flat earth theories and looking foolish.
You fail to see that some tried to help you.
You took it personally.
You called out the race card when it wasn't necessary.
You're now calling upon someone who's reputation for producing nearly equally incorrect information about color management to create yet another video to defend two of your video’s that can't be defended on a technical basis nor were peer reviewed.
Save yourself more time and shame, pull both video's. Create them again using the message that has merit but expressed using proper and correct color management science!
You'll get no blow back.
You'll get peer recommendation.
Your audience will not have to wonder if you're selling snake oil or false data points.
Your audience will get good education and information. Win/Win Gary.
But to continue to come into this lion's den of informed users and try to defend what you've done isn't helping you one bit. Just the opposite. That you don't see this after so many days is sad. Why are you going down this destructive route? When dozens of people tell you the salient points used to express a concept is technically flawed, is it possible they might be correct? Is it possible they might want to help you provide the message with merit correctly? Or everyone is wrong and against you? The comments about your lighting product was IMHO unfair and not deserved. The comments about the technically incorrect data points you express about color management are fair, this isn't an opinion or subjective, it's science.
-
If you'll look at my earlier video in Toronto, I have the same message. Ken Rockwell shows the same linear ramp on his explanation of AdobeRGB and sRGB. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
As I said in the last post, would you like me to break up the rainbow and make humps where there is more color information? Would that make much difference when all I'm trying to do is explain color clipping? What I learned here is how angry people can get, as if contamination of the purity of the message will infect the photography world with misinformation.
So I'm going to be putting this to the test, with printing images within each color space (beginning to end), and showing it to the general public. If you all are right, the overwhelming majority will definitively pick the Adobe RGB over the sRGB, and I will give the tally, and entitle the video something like, "Workflow steps to achieve significantly better color". If it results in confusion, a tie, close to a tie, or sRGB being better, then the video will be something like, "The AdobeRGB myth". But I need your comments to reference regards to the "myth".
I'm not taking down the video. I need to reference the comments below it in my upcoming series on sRGB vs AdobeRGB. I'm going to be quoting from the video comments.
-
If you'll look at my earlier video in Toronto, I have the same message. Ken Rockwell shows the same linear ramp on his explanation of AdobeRGB and sRGB. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
Yes and both you, Ken and Will are wrong in terms of sound, well accepted color management science. It is as simple as that.
When Will states FACT ONE: there are no printers with a color space (aka output space) that is larger (holding more volume of data) than sRGB.
it is absolutely not so! The gamut maps and gamut volume reports prove otherwise. You three may be providing the same message with merit, but teaching it with false and incorrect color theory doesn't make the false statements any less incorrect. How you three don't get that is beyond me.
-
If you'll look at my earlier video in Toronto, I have the same message. Ken Rockwell shows the same linear ramp on his explanation of AdobeRGB and sRGB. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
As I said in the last post, would you like me to break up the rainbow and make humps where there is more color information? Would that make much difference when all I'm trying to do is explain color clipping? What I learned here is how angry people can get, as if contamination of the purity of the message will infect the photography world with misinformation.
So I'm going to be putting this to the test, with printing images within each color space (beginning to end), and showing it to the general public. If you all are right, the overwhelming majority will definitively pick the Adobe RGB over the sRGB, and I will give the tally, and entitle the video something like, "Workflow steps to achieve significantly better color". If it results in confusion, a tie, close to a tie, or sRGB being better, then the video will be something like, "The AdobeRGB myth". But I need your comments to reference regards to the "myth".
I'm not taking down the video. I need to reference the comments below it in my upcoming series on sRGB vs AdobeRGB. I'm going to be quoting from the video comments.
Ohh this this where you got the idea of the rainbow?
Okay, so beginning of the misconception here.
Explanation of the fail is very simple then:
Look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/jpg/100-adobe-ramp.jpg metas.
This Adobe RGB encoded image is not indicating its color space.
In color management software specs (including browser) an image without color profile attached is assumed sRGB.
So concretely in this page, Ken Rockwell shows an Adobe RGB image declaring itself sRGB.
Of course the colors appear wrong!
However today's desktop browsers would have displayed the same image correctly if it wasn't intentionally crippled by missing the required ICC profile.
Note: as of today, mobile web browsers (except FireFox) lack color management.
-
As I said in the last post, would you like me to break up the rainbow and make humps where there is more color information? Would that make much difference when all I'm trying to do is explain color clipping?
Please don't do that. Just use a chromaticity diagram like everyone else. It's not complicated and it's been the standard way to illustrate color for a long time.
-
I said if you had an aRGB file you would have to convert to sRGB before uploading to web or most wet process beforehand. Not the otherway around.
What do you think will be the result of my public opinion test when I show passersby unmarked prints of images taken both in contained sRGB or aRGB workflows? I'll put up a tally of who voted for which. Do you think the result will be enormously in favor of the AdobeRGB workflow print, or the sRGB workflow print?
-
I said if you had an aRGB file you would have to convert to sRGB before uploading to web or most wet process beforehand. Not the otherway around.
What do you think will be the result of my public opinion test when I show passersby unmarked prints of images taken both in contained sRGB or aRGB workflows? I'll put up a tally of who voted for which. Do you think the result will be enormously in favor of the AdobeRGB workflow print, or the sRGB workflow print?
Depends,
If the process you plan to use is to print Adobe RGB and sRGB images on flawed equipment that's incapable of supporting the most basic color management capabilities, and fail to interpret colors correctly:
Of course a majority of people will prefer images with more saturated colors.
So in case this is what you plan to do, the only thing you'll demonstrate is how bad is your workflow.
-
Depends,
If the process you plan to use is to print Adobe RGB and sRGB images on flawed equipment that's incapable of supporting the most basic color management capabilities, and fail to interpret colors correctly:
Of course a majority of people will prefer images with more saturated colors.
So in case this is what you plan to do, the only thing you'll demonstrate is how bad is your workflow.
I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. Image shot in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB. This is demonstrating how bad my workflow is? Are you expecting that the average person will vote for the sRGB? Or maybe it'll be a tie?
Tell me in advance what is bad about the workflow I'm going to use, so I can consider it for the video.
-
I said if you had an aRGB file you would have to convert to sRGB before uploading to web or most wet process beforehand. Not the otherway around.
What do you think will be the result of my public opinion test when I show passersby unmarked prints of images taken both in contained sRGB or aRGB workflows? I'll put up a tally of who voted for which. Do you think the result will be enormously in favor of the AdobeRGB workflow print, or the sRGB workflow print?
I have two questions following up on that, and what you say in the original sRGB vs Adobe RGB video at 1:38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU#t=98)
Transcript:
I ran a lab named Pictage, the largest digital lab in the united states.
For a long time I was working with people's images and I could look at anybody's photos and say
"you know what, I'm sorry but you shot that in Adobe RGB and you printed it on a color printer that is regular prints
I can tell by the colors the reds because they look muddy"
Were you saying here that your lab didn't support ICC profiles and were printing only sRGB encoded images correctly?
Is that the experiment you plan to reproduce:
Intentionally pick broken software and printers lacking color management to demonstrate your point?
-
I said if you had an aRGB file you would have to convert to sRGB before uploading to web or most wet process beforehand. Not the otherway around.
No, you wouldn't. Not for whatever you mean by wet process (you'd convert to the output color space from ANY RGB working space) and not on the web with a color managed browser. It's a good idea to convert to sRGB for those that don't have a color managed browser. And as I tried to point out to you, Adobe RGB (1998) in a non color managed browser would look fine on my wide gamut display, sRGB would not. The lesson here for you Gary is with color managed applications and using sound color management for output, you absolutely do not have to feed either sRGB!
What do you think will be the result of my public opinion test when I show passersby unmarked prints of images taken both in contained sRGB or aRGB workflows? I'll put up a tally of who voted for which. Do you think the result will be enormously in favor of the AdobeRGB workflow print, or the sRGB workflow print?
The first question I'd have is, are you even treating the data correctly? I'm highly suspicious you will. Next, had you watched my video on color gamut or understood it, you'd see that clipping colors to sRGB you can print will affect the reproduction of that image on a print. If the image was of the Mendocino ocean shot, both working spaces would produce about the same results. If you used the sunset, or birds eye image, the difference could be seen on a print assuming even a half decent printer who's gamut exceeds sRGB. Any modern ink jet from Epson, Canon etc will greatly exceeed sRGB gamut.
-
I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. Image shot in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB. This is demonstrating how bad my workflow is? Are you expecting that the average person will vote for the sRGB? Or maybe it'll be a tie?
Tell me in advance what is bad about the workflow I'm going to use, so I can consider it for the video.
Sorry I have no experience with printers so I can't give any advise on that.
However, anticipating you know the reaction to this potential video, what you might inadvertently do is expose a buggy or flawed implementation of color management in this printer, or its driver.
It won't demonstrate a general point, but instead pin point a specific defect.
In case you know and you're friend with the manufacturer of this printer, expect him to not be too happy with your demonstration as people will point out its flaw.
I mean I understand your initiative here, but given the elements it's easy to predict it won't make the topic progress much and will have annoying side effects.
-
I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. Image shot in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB. This is demonstrating how bad my workflow is? Are you expecting that the average person will vote for the sRGB? Or maybe it'll be a tie?
It doesn't matter a lick! How will this in any way dismiss or correct the technically flawed language you used in two videos on the subject of RGB working spaces? The new video you propose isn't based on a sound scientific proposition anyway.
You are clearly not interested in any advise presented here although you ask which is a bit odd. Best thing to do Gary is not rush to create another technically flawed video in an attempt to cover up the flaws in the other two videos. Take a deep breath and examine the comments here and on your other video pages from people who are really are trying to help you and more importantly your audience. If you ask 99 people what print they prefer and all 99 say sRGB, it in no way gets you off the hook in terms of the technical flaws in the videos. People can accuse you of editing the video to suite your predefined expectations. People can poke at flaws in your workflow and process and dismiss the results which in the end, don't do anything to fix the technical wrong doing's in both previous videos. What's the rush Gary? Wouldn't it be better to digest the comments you've gotten over the past couple days on your last video?
-
Do you guys ever take pictures? I would think not, given the amount of time you spend ranting on this topic. Hasn't it gone on long enough? Gary is clearly not going to change his mind no matter what is said; the anti-Gary gang is never going to accept his version of color control, so why don't you all just declare victory and go take picture?
-
Do you guys ever take pictures? I would think not, given the amount of time you spend ranting on this topic. Hasn't it gone on long enough? Gary is clearly not going to change his mind no matter what is said; the anti-Gary gang is never going to accept his version of color control, so why don't you all just declare victory and go take picture?
No offense but.. not sure you get the point of discussion forums in the internet ;D
-
Do you guys ever take pictures?
Yes, all the time, even in fact today! Is that an important data point in the discussion?
I would think not, given the amount of time you spend ranting on this topic.
They why ask?
Hasn't it gone on long enough?
For some yes, for others no. If it's gone on too long for you, no one is forcing you to read or comment on these posts.
Gary is clearly not going to change his mind no matter what is said; the anti-Gary gang is never going to accept his version of color control, so why don't you all just declare victory and go take picture?
Some of us are trying to give Gary the benefit of the doubt although based on his writings over the past few days, I suspect your suspicions are correct. But as Gary has suggested he intends to link to this set of discussions in his new video and he continues to ask questions, some are attempting to answer them. And as said earlier, much of this is akin to a good car wreck, it's getting progressively more difficult to turn away after every new Fong posting. But heck, you don't want to read or comment, that's fine, you don't have to.
Speaking for myself, this isn't anti Gary, it's anti color management religion and pro color management science.
-
I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. Image shot in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB. This is demonstrating how bad my workflow is? Are you expecting that the average person will vote for the sRGB? Or maybe it'll be a tie?
Tell me in advance what is bad about the workflow I'm going to use, so I can consider it for the video.
One more thing about this idea, if you're interested making things progress here.
If you know of professional equipment that has bugs in its implementation of color management, I'd say please report that to the manufacturer ASAP.
That's the responsible thing to do: an error in color management is actually something very severe especially for professional print equipment.
Then after a reasonable amount of time if they don't address the error or simply ignore your report, by all means feel free to expose them as a bad manufacturer.
This way, people can avoid buying this flawed product from them, or at least know a workaround the bug.
But yeah otherwise, just shaming them publicly in a video without notice: not so nice.
-
it's anti color management religion and pro color management science.
This is the best-said sentence in the entire discussion, IMO.
-
I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. Image shot in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB. This is demonstrating how bad my workflow is? Are you expecting that the average person will vote for the sRGB? Or maybe it'll be a tie?
Tell me in advance what is bad about the workflow I'm going to use, so I can consider it for the video.
First off, I'd shoot ONE image in raw, then convert to sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) from the raw converter instead of two images processed in each from the camera. Why? Because it eliminates some variables. Just make the master raw 'look good' then convert without trying to adjust to the two RGB working spaces based on any soft proof. If you must capture without raw, it should be something that is a still life where the two are absolutely identical expect for the camera color settings.
Next keep in mind when you say AdobeRGB printed in AdobeRGB, sRGB printed in sRGB that makes no sense. Again, there is no such thing as a printer that produces either. Both color spaces will be converted to an output color space. Got a good printer profile? That be darn useful. I'd be very happy to build an excellent quality custom profile for whatever printer you use. Ain't going to happen by tomorrow. If you do build or supply an output profile, we can plot the gamut of the printer. We can also plot the gamut of the two images on top of it. That would be quite useful IF your goal is to really understand what is and isn't out of gamut.
Image content is important. I've illustrated this in my video which has been referenced. It would be very easy to stack the decks in favor of either working space based on image content. Keep in mind Gary that the scene itself has a gamut and while the camera, illuminant and other factors can be static, if you capture a monochromic scene versus one with vivid colors (blue sky was an example), the results can vary tremendously.
The paper surface could play a role, and of course, the way in which the prints are illuminated and viewed by the people voting. You'd be better off getting a group of volunteers of male and female and of different age groups.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other items, but if you conducted your tests using all of the above, I know I'd have far less reason to dismiss the results!
-
Way to retain your equanimity and step up, Andrew. Hope Gary takes the help, but I wouldn't bet on a digitaldogfong video.
-
... flawed equipment that's incapable of supporting the most basic color management capabilities, and fail to interpret colors correctly...
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB. You seem to argue that modern equipment are all color managed, i.e., capable of converting on the fly whatever color space you supply, in which case no lab should be asking specifically for sRGB, right?
Oh, by the way, I am still on Windows XP and non-color managed IE- as is a significant percent of users worldwide). Why? Because I am a Mac guy and use a virtual machine for Windows apps only when absolutely necessary.
-
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB. You seem to argue that modern equipment are all color managed, i.e., capable of converting on the fly whatever color space you supply, in which case no lab should be asking specifically for sRGB, right?
The equipment per se can accept any working space to native output color space, the front end processing path may demand sRGB. Using such a front end would totally defeat the purpose of the testing and results. Gary stated: I'm going to be using a commercial inkjet printer from a pro lab. It would be useful to know the exact printer but I can't think of any off hand that couldn’t accept sRGB or Adobe RGB converted properly to a good output profile whereby that output color space could be sent 'as is' to the printer driver.
Oh, by the way, I am still on Windows XP and non-color managed IE- as is a significant percent of users worldwide). Why? Because I am a Mac guy and use a virtual machine for Windows apps only when absolutely necessary.
IF you're a Mac guy, you have Safari which is color managed.
-
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB. You seem to argue that modern equipment are all color managed, i.e., capable of converting on the fly whatever color space you supply, in which case no lab should be asking specifically for sRGB, right?
Oh, by the way, I am still on Windows XP and non-color managed IE- as is a significant percent of users worldwide). Why? Because I am a Mac guy and use a virtual machine for Windows apps only when absolutely necessary.
Nope as I say earlier I know very little about printing and printer.
Paper or is not really part of my environment.
But as valid a color space conversion routine can be written in just a few lines of code (and with essentially no effort if using libraries), I would have hard time to consider professional quality any printing equipment that doesn't support color management, today, in 2014 as digital printing is not any kind of new technology anymore.
Tho I have no doubt it exists.
In my domain, in mobile (smartphones, tablets) there's pretty much no color management whatsoever today despite the incredible variety of displays out here and popularity of wide gamut panels.
I'm working on that.
-
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB.
Hi Slobodan,
Converting to sRGB will solve that. What Gary seems to do is assigning sRGB to an image in Adobe RGB colorspace, which will make the image look dull and desaturated. The latter would be operator error, not a problem with profiles.
Converting to sRGB would avoid that, but may still be followed by another operator error if the actual output profile is not sRGB and the correct output profile is then assigned to the sRGB image instead of converted from sRGB to output colorspace.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB.
Yeah, that's the sad thing about photo labs now, however, lowly Costco has adopted a properly color managed workflow. You can go to Dry Creek Photo and download custom profiles for Costco stores all over the world. Oh, BTW, they make nice prints for really cheap.
If I was going to outsource chem or inkjet prints (they offer both in some stores) that's where I would go. In fact I know some volume wedding/portrait shooters who do just that–you can request the printed by Costco be removed on the back of the print (you don't want your clients to know you are using a cheap, properly color managed photo lab :~).
-
Converting to sRGB will solve that. What Gary seems to do is assigning sRGB to an image in Adobe RGB colorspace, which will make the image look dull and desaturated. The latter would be operator error, not a problem with profiles.
Not just Gary but good old Ken Rockwell, another color management religious zealot who I suspect Gary and Will have read and accepted as fact:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
1.) Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.
Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file. Special smart software is then needed to expand the colors back to where they should be when opening the file.
If you use Adobe RGB you will have to remember to convert back to sRGB for sending your prints out or sharing them on the Internet. Otherwise they look duller than sRGB!
Pretty absurd but that's the kind of color management voodoo that remains on the web that other's read, accept and preach.
-
Converting to sRGB will solve that...
Indeed, Bart. This is what you and I, and everybody else on this forum would do. But Garry is apparently addressing an audience that doesn't do that, doesn't know how to to do that, or doesn't want to know that. And apparently, those print labs do not do that either. Not because they do not know how, but because (I am guessing here) that is an extra step they are not willing to waste time on.
-
DigitalDog:
Depends on the paper surface? Male vs Female? Different ages for the test group? Wait for you to build a custom profile for the commercial printer we are going to use? But it won't happen by tomorrow? Then you wouldn't be critical of the test?
It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other. Results shown to the general population, who will vote. And I will publish far and wide the results. If AdobeRGB is that much better, then that would be a huge reason for people to maintain that workflow. If not, then it won't be. I have a hunch how it's going to go, but I can't say for sure until I test it in a controlled environment with no variables between samples.
I'm not going to take it in RAW then polish it up. They will be identical. SOTC.
All of this heated discussion going on, isn't AdobeRGB going to be hugely the winner for all of the work you do to hone this in?
Are you confident that AdobeRGB is so much better than sRGB, or not?
-
Andrew - following the results of this test, would you be up for a Skype interview for my YouTube channel? I'll limit the questions to your interpretation of the results, so you can speak your mind.
-
But Garry is apparently addressing an audience that doesn't do that, doesn't know how to to do that, or doesn't want to know that.
And neither of his video's address this while spewing technically incorrect data points about color spaces. Is the new mantra "don't do stupid stuff"?
How many video's are out there telling people that JPEG files set at quality level 1 don't look as good or print as well as quality 9? How many video's or articles are there that tell new users not to take their full resolution captures, resize using Nearest Neighbor to 100x100 pixels and save over the original high rez file? How many video's are there telling people it's a bad idea to put their DSLR's in the dishwasher to clean the lens?
Gary isn't addressing the audience you suggest he is, at least he isn't teaching them what not to do. I'm unclear how you see defending his video is in any way justified other than what some have already stated in a fraction of the time it takes to view his video with all the misinformation: If you don't understand anything abould color management, set the camera to sRGB. Anyone could create a video what that statement in mere seconds, no one would or should dispute it.
-
Quote: Indeed, Bart. This is what you and I, and everybody else on this forum would do. But Garry is apparently addressing an audience that doesn't do that, doesn't know how to to do that, or doesn't want to know that. And apparently, those print labs do not do that either. Not because they do not know how, but because (I am guessing here) that is an extra step they are not willing to waste time on.
Correct. I'm addressing the topic of, "why do my colors look duller when I switched to aRGB setting?". This is a very, very common complaint from the average photographer with average experience. I am excited to do my comparison test and put it to the public, and show the test results. I have no predictions, but just a hunch, as to how the results will be.
-
Depends on the paper surface? Male vs Female? Different ages for the test group? Wait for you to build a custom profile for the commercial printer we are going to use? But it won't happen by tomorrow? Then you wouldn't be critical of the test?
What isn't clear about the testing process I propose?
It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other.
Why just a Color Checker? Not a good idea as the sole object in the test for a number of reasons.
I'm not going to take it in RAW then polish it up
I didn't suggest you polish. IF you capture raw, we can (you could) also see the results of ProPhoto RGB on the data. Again, IF you viewed my video, you'd see that Adobe RGB is too small a working space for many scene's and output devices. You are limiting the data you can gain from the test by allowing the camera to funnel the color even into Adobe RGB (1998)!
All of this heated discussion going on, isn't AdobeRGB going to be hugely the winner for all of the work you do to hone this in?
I'm somewhat concerned that you feel there has to be a winner and thus a loser. Based on your push back in just your last post about how to conduct such a test, after you yourself asked us for comments, I suspect this is just another waste of time.
Why don't you tell us the full aspect of the test: what capture device, of what subject under what illuminant. Printed on what device using what kind of color management. What print size and viewed how? If you really DO want to get to the bottom of this, what is the testing process and what is it you hope to gain?
Lastly, how will any of this fix the mistakes on your other two video's?
-
It seems to me this case is hopeless. The issue with muted colors is usually related to wrong encoding (not using color management) rather than out of gamut colors.
Encoding issues could led people to believe there are differences in the reds. If you check, the R and B coordinates are the same in sRGB and Adobe RGB, the differences are in the G coordinate, so the out of gamut colors are in the cyan-green-yellow/green areas.
The other difference is the TRC, which causes some out of gamur colors at high L values.
-
Correct. I'm addressing the topic of, "why do my colors look duller when I switched to aRGB setting?".
Because you did something wrong. Simple as that. Want to see the use of sRGB look grossly over saturated? It's as easy to do as what you just proposed, take Adobe RGB and treat it as sRGB. What have you gained other than show someone they treated the data incorrectly? Take sRGB and use Photoshop's desaturate command or set Hue/Sat (saturation) to -100. All the color disappeared. You didn't want the color to appear to desaturate? Don't set the controls that way dummy.
-
A significant number of print labs still asks to send them sRGB. You seem to argue that modern equipment are all color managed, i.e., capable of converting on the fly whatever color space you supply, in which case no lab should be asking specifically for sRGB, right?
Oh, by the way, I am still on Windows XP and non-color managed IE- as is a significant percent of users worldwide). Why? Because I am a Mac guy and use a virtual machine for Windows apps only when absolutely necessary.
If you are Ken Rockwell sending your prints to Costco, you wouldn't really lose much gamut by sending your images in sRGB for printing, since the gamut of the printer is hardly larger than sRGB. Shown below is a 3D gamut plot showing the gamut of the Fuji Frontier printer at my local Costco which prints on glossy Fuji Crystal Archive paper (in color) and that of sRGB (in white). This is the image on the bottom. There are only minor differences as shown. Costco does not offer glossy paper for their Epson inkjet, so I plotted the gamut of the Epson 3880 using Premium Glossy Epson paper against sRGB, shown on the top. The Epson has a much wider gamut, and one could not obtain the benefit of the wide gamut of this printer using sRGB as a source.
Bill
-
It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other. Results shown to the general population, who will vote. And I will publish far and wide the results. If AdobeRGB is that much better, then that would be a huge reason for people to maintain that workflow. If not, then it won't be. I have a hunch how it's going to go, but I can't say for sure until I test it in a controlled environment with no variables between samples.
Out of the 24 patches of the color checker, there is only one cyan patch that is out of sRGB. If your results have any other differences, then your process is wrong
-
What isn't clear about the testing process I propose? Why just a Color Checker? Not a good idea as the sole object in the test for a number of reasons. I didn't suggest you polish. IF you capture raw, we can (you could) also see the results of ProPhoto RGB on the data. Again, IF you viewed my video, you'd see that Adobe RGB is too small a working space for many scene's and output devices. You are limiting the data you can gain from the test by allowing the camera to funnel the color even into Adobe RGB (1998)! I'm somewhat concerned that you feel there has to be a winner and thus a loser. Based on your push back in just your last post about how to conduct such a test, after you yourself asked us for comments, I suspect this is just another waste of time.
Why don't you tell us the full aspect of the test: what capture device, of what subject under what illuminant. Printed on what device using what kind of color management. What print size and viewed how? If you really DO want to get to the bottom of this, what is the testing process and what is it you hope to gain?
Lastly, how will any of this fix the mistakes on your other two video's?
Why the color checker? Because it will show the difference between squares. If I did a portrait, it would be subjective. The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight. In either case, they will be the same lighting, neutrally custom balanced.
What do I hope to gain? A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't. Or if it's a tie. No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method. It will be an A/B test, no variables except for the capture and output color space.
Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?
-
DigitalDog:
Depends on the paper surface? Male vs Female? Different ages for the test group? Wait for you to build a custom profile for the commercial printer we are going to use? But it won't happen by tomorrow? Then you wouldn't be critical of the test?
It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other. Results shown to the general population, who will vote. And I will publish far and wide the results. If AdobeRGB is that much better, then that would be a huge reason for people to maintain that workflow. If not, then it won't be. I have a hunch how it's going to go, but I can't say for sure until I test it in a controlled environment with no variables between samples.
I'm not going to take it in RAW then polish it up. They will be identical. SOTC.
All of this heated discussion going on, isn't AdobeRGB going to be hugely the winner for all of the work you do to hone this in?
Are you confident that AdobeRGB is so much better than sRGB, or not?
Gary, you are assuming here that the camera you will use in this test is color calibrated.
However unless you calibrate it yourself with a very precise methodology, your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all.
To make your test valid, you cannot use as source a non-calibrated input (your camera).
Why?
Think about that:
You'll compare a non-calibrated input printed to a non-calibrated output with the real color checker itself.
The results of such test won't mean anything.
If I was not clear enough, the test itself and its results are entirely irrelevant due to methodology error.
If you want to get closer to something relevant, print the color checker images encoded in sRGB and Adobe RGB you can find on http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm
Those are the color patches read by spectrophotometers, which will be a lot more accurate than cameras JPEG outputs, all of them being intentionally tweaked to look more flattering and follow a manufacturer-specific "signature look".
Sorry to tell you your idea doesn't work but, well, you asked :)
-
If you are Ken Rockwell sending your prints to Costco, you wouldn't really lose much gamut by sending your images in sRGB for printing, since the gamut of the printer is hardly larger than sRGB
Naturally it depends on the Costco printer as they offer output on Epson's too.
Why lose ANY gamut?
Here's my list of the kinds of printers you are speaking of and the colors (in one area) that clip. FWIW, it's quite easy to have NO clipping. Don't use sRGB. sRGB is hardly every the right answer for output to a print (if you understand how to use color management that is):
(http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGB_vs_SilverPrinters.jpg)
If you don't care about those greens and blues and some yellows (in just these areas of color space), sRGB is the right answer for you. Some of us do care.
-
Why the color checker? Because it will show the difference between squares. If I did a portrait, it would be subjective. The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight. In either case, they will be the same lighting, neutrally custom balanced.
What do I hope to gain? A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't. Or if it's a tie. No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method. It will be an A/B test, no variables except for the capture and output color space.
Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?
If you are using the color checker with sRGB, you will have problems, since the cyan patch is out of gamut with sRGB. According to Bruce Lindbloom, that patch (with D50 illumination) has an sRGB value of -48.9 for the red channel.
Bill
-
Yeah, that's the sad thing about photo labs now, however, lowly Costco has adopted a properly color managed workflow. You can go to Dry Creek Photo and download custom profiles for Costco stores all over the world...
Yes, Jeff, you and I, and (mostly) everybody else on this forum can. Once again, there is an audience (e.g., Garry's audience) that can not or doesn't want to.
How do we know about Dry Creek? I learned it years ago by spending way too much time reading photography forums and stumbling on it in some post. That came after I decided to embark on this never-ending journey into color management, better known, at that time, by its affectionate acronym "WTF!?" (or what I said the first time I attempted to print something at home and saw those dark, crazy-color prints).
You'd think you would find the info on Dry Creek on Costco site. Yes, but not immediately or obviously. I found it, but I was actively searching for it. It is not on their screen when you are ordering photos. It is not on their Help section. It is on their home page, at the bottom, where all those "small prints" are, under the title the least likely to contain info on printer profiles: "About Costco."
-
Why the color checker? Because it will show the difference between squares. If I did a portrait, it would be subjective.
So in your mind, the only way to test is use either a portrait OR just a Color Checker? Think harder Gary.
The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight.
That comment will indeed invoke some laughter here but let's not go there as yet....
What do I hope to gain? A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't.
As so far stated, your testing methodology is very flawed. IF that's all you want to do, you don't have to shoot anything at all. Download my Printer Test File which IS in Adobe RGB (1998). Convert to sRGB, print one of each correctly implementing color management. http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method.
You intend to have some human's view the prints and vote? If so, all of the variables including the observers viewing the prints is absolutely important. Why not just ask Will and Ken to vote along with just your vote and post the results? What you propose is silly sir.
Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?
Based on what you've proposed? Absolutely not. IF and when you want to come up with a scientific method and lose the religion, maybe.
And again, for the 3rd time Gary, how will any of this fix the number of mistakes you've provided on your two video's on the subject of color management and color spaces? I'm missing this piece of the pie.
-
Yes, Jeff, you and I, and (mostly) everybody else on this forum can. Once again, there is an audience (e.g., Garry's audience) that can not or doesn't want to.
And you've come up with that fact how? It is a rather ridiculous statement sir. If they can navitage to Gary's video's I suspect they can make their way to DryCreek's site too.
You sound very much like Gary on his video page by suggesting beginners are simply too stupid to learn how to do this properly, it isn't so. Teach them!
-
Naturally it depends on the Costco printer as they offer output on Epson's too.
Why lose ANY gamut?
Here's my list of the kinds of printers you are speaking of and the colors (in one area) that clip. FWIW, it's quite easy to have NO clipping. Don't use sRGB. sRGB is hardly every the right answer for output to a print (if you understand how to use color management that is):
(http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGB_vs_SilverPrinters.jpg)
If you don't care about those greens and blues and some yellows (in just these areas of color space), sRGB is the right answer for you. Some of us do care.
Andrew,
Thanks for posting the additional plots. Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.
Mr. Fong can perform his tests, but I would imagine that they would show what you have already demonstrated with your Colorthink plots. If one has accurate profiles, this would be akin to soft proofing and would avoid wasting paper. A plot would be necessary to demonstrate what colors are actually in his test image and that they are sufficiently saturated to stress the printer. It would be interesting to see how the visual appearances correlate with the DeltaEs of the plot. If one trusts science, the results are already in as shown by your plots.
Regards,
Bill
-
Out of the 24 patches of the color checker, there is only one cyan patch that is out of sRGB. If your results have any other differences, then your process is wrong
I suspect it will be.
Bet you dollars to donuts based on these facts about the lack of out of gamut colors in the chart, we see Gary use it exclusively anyway!
-
Thanks for posting the additional plots. Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.
So?
The plots also illustrate the nonsense Will has stated about sRGB and output devices, not that it will stop Gary from hooking up with Will to produce a video that will likely have more egregious misinformation while dragging my name through the mud. I can hardly wait to see it!
-
Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.
Here's a Lightjet on Fuji Matt paper:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsLJ_FujiMatt.jpg)
-
And you've come up with that fact how? It is a rather ridiculous statement sir. If they can navitage to Gary's video's I suspect they can make their way to DryCreek's site too.
You sound very much like Gary on his video page by suggesting beginners are simply too stupid to learn how to do this properly, it isn't so. Teach them!
Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles). I have friends with Canon 1Ds and a bunch of L lenses, who shoot jpegs. Not because they are too stupid to learn (they are computer programers), but they prefer to spend less time on the computer when not working.
Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn. Just that they have no interest in learning it. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am not too stupid to learn how car engines operate or chemical properties of gasoline, yet I have zero interest in doing so, beyond getting into a car to get me between points A and B, and stopping occasionally to refuel (in which case the only thing I need to know is that my car can take 87 octanes gas - do I need to know the definition of octane?)
Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion. Both of you guys serve a very useful purpose, just in a different way. I like you both, btw, for different reasons. If I need to know the science behind gasoline, I will NOT go to Mr. Fong. By the same token, if I am running low on gas and need a direction to the nearest gas station, you, sir, are the last person I would ask, because you would first give me an hour-long lecture on chemical properties of gasoline ;)
-
Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion.
Well that's the problem isn't it? Mr. Fong IS [trying] to explain WHY. If he wasn't, this thread wouldn't exist.
-
Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles).
Great, then the data points are only valid for those friends unless you wish to extrapolate that the rest of Gary's audience or potential audience fall into the came camp and I don't know how you'd prove that.
Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn.
Sure are treating them as such.
Just that they have no interest in learning it.
Fine, then as I've said repeatedly the just use sRGB recommendation is a good one. HOW in any way does this dismiss the incorrect information Gary has provided about color management in his two videos? How can you justify such misinformation?
-
Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles). I have friends with Canon 1Ds and a bunch of L lenses, who shoot jpegs. Not because they are too stupid to learn (they are computer programers), but they prefer to spend less time on the computer when not working.
Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn. Just that they have no interest in learning it. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am not too stupid to learn how car engines operate or chemical properties of gasoline, yet I have zero interest in doing so, beyond getting into a car to get me between points A and B, and stopping occasionally to refuel (in which case the only thing I need to know is that my car can take 87 octanes gas - do I need to know the definition of octane?)
Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion. Both of you guys serve a very useful purpose, just in a different way. I like you both, btw, for different reasons. If I need to know the science behind gasoline, I will NOT go to Mr. Fong. By the same token, if I am running low on gas and need a direction to the nearest gas station, you, sir, are the last person I would ask, because you would first give me an hour-long lecture on chemical properties of gasoline ;)
It's a worthwhile analogy but maybe incomplete.
In the current state of affairs, Gary would tell you to pick a specific octane of gas (possibly the right one, possibly not depending on your priorities)
But then he would add that if you don't your brakes would stop working and the light might get blue instead of white.
And most people would be be like.. WUT?
-
Regarding an experiment of people viewing test prints, I think it would be an interesting exercise IF DONE CORRECTLY. There are several variables that would need to be addressed and the expertise and experience of the participants in photography and digital imaging would play a role. Here is what I would do and the results I would expect:
I would use a wide-gamut printing device, probably a nice inkjet, that has a gamut that exceeds sRGB significantly in at least some dimensions.
I would make all test prints with that device and using the same paper (probably glossy).
I would have some pairs of comparison prints side-by-side and other pairs separated by distance (other side or room, different room). Viewing conditions (lighting) should be as similar as possible.
I would have participants self-qualify as non-photographer, amateur photographer, or pro/serious enthusiast (not perfect but probably a reasonable compromise).
I would use various images for the test, more-or-less as I am indicating below. Which specific images are used is a pretty big deal.
Here is generally what I would expect:
- In general, the side-by-side comparisons would show the most difference. Comparison prints separated by space would register less consistent differences, especially as the difference between prints drops.
- Test #1 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. that same image developed as AdobeRGB and then incorrectly converted to sRGB (assigning sRGB rather than converting to sRGB).
This is essentially what Gary was demonstrating in his video. In this case I would expect a high number of people, regardless of qualification, to see the difference and to identify the raw-to-sRGB image as the better image. Even comparison prints separated by distance should be detected as significantly different, assuming the test image has a mix of colors including some that are fairly saturated.
- Test #2 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. raw file developed as AdobeRGB. Subjects in test image include a significant amount of color that is outside the sRGB gamut (specifically, greens, cyans, and yellows).
Here I would expect the number of people detecting differences to drop pretty significantly - particularly for non-photographers and for comparison prints separated by distance. The famous Gary Fong "dullness" is a minor factor here. It comes down to differences in color saturation of some colors, subtle hue shifts, and detail.
- Test #3 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. raw file developed as AdobeRGB. Colors in test image fall completely within the sRGB gamut (a portrait, perhaps, of a person wearing neutral clothing).
In this case I would expect the number of people (correctly) detecting a difference would drop to a very small number - probably only pros/serious enthusiasts using the side-by-side comparisons. Here, the only difference should be very subtle differences in tonal gradations in gradients. Even those few participants identifying a difference may have difficulty choosing which one they consider "best".
Obviously, there are a lot of ways such a test can be "gamed".
Now as related to Gary's video:
- There is little or no relationship between what such an experiment would show and most of the criticisms being leveled at Gary's video. Most people are agreeing that sRGB is a pretty good choice for beginners and people who are not interested in or not ready for color management. Most people are criticizing Gary's video for how he explains WHY sRGB is a pretty good choice for those people. More than 4 minutes of the 5-minute video is not even necessary. If Gary wants to keep it simple, then keep it simple. He doesn't need to add a bunch of incorrect and confusing crap. If someone continues to ask "Why sRGB?", he can just say "trust me" and recite his resume. That's what he gets around to doing anyway. He might as well save 5 minutes and move on to the next subject.
- Gary has shown in the video comments and here that has at least one of the following:
A. Poor reading comprehension
B. Poor writing skills
C. Limited time resulting in A or B
D. A conscious intent of misrepresenting what others have written.
It appears likely to me that he will, at best, likely misinterpret any results of an experiment and, at worst, manipulate the test and/or results to suit himself.
- As evidenced by other videos on YouTube, he has been giving this same spiel for at least 3 years. He has not only painted himself into a corner on the subject, he has built a brick wall between him and the rest of the room while the paint dried. He will likely apply any trick necessary (denial, obfuscation, misdirection, insults, reliance on his resume, references to others making the same mistakes, etc.) to avoid admitting he made a mistake. Ultimately and unfortunately, he will likely use all this discussion as proof that his "simple" explanation is much better - that it is impossible for the "color nerds" to explain this in less than 100 pages. Of course this is wrong - the somewhat complex explanations are only necessary in trying to correct his "simple" mistakes. There are many, many alternative ways to explain this to a beginner audience in a simple AND correct manner that won't inhibit their more advanced learning in the future.
-
Gary, you are assuming here that the camera you will use in this test is color calibrated.
However unless you calibrate it yourself with a very precise methodology, your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all.
To make your test valid, you cannot use as source a non-calibrated input (your camera).
Why?
Think about that:
You'll compare a non-calibrated input printed to a non-calibrated output with the real color checker itself.
The results of such test won't mean anything.
If I was not clear enough, the test itself and its results are entirely irrelevant due to methodology error.
If you want to get closer to something relevant, print the color checker images encoded in sRGB and Adobe RGB you can find on http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm
Those are the color patches read by spectrophotometers, which will be a lot more accurate than cameras JPEG outputs, all of them being intentionally tweaked to look more flattering and follow a manufacturer-specific "signature look".
Sorry to tell you your idea doesn't work but, well, you asked :)
What is so funny about shooting two images in daylight with different color spaces?
What will this prove? If sRGB is preferred by more people, the same number of people, then sRGB is a valid color management system for photography. If AdobeRGB blows it away, then all of your work (calibrating your camera!) taking many tests under many conditions, using just the right paper, etc. won't matter because AdobeRGB is the hands-down color path to stunningly better color.
This test won't work for you, I get it. But it needs to be done to shed some light on if it is really worthwhile to have to shoot in AdobeRGB to preserve the rich color detail you're saying. People should decide if it is worth it or not, when choosing a workflow.
I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all". Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony? Are they not accurate at all? Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?
You can be interviewed or not, I'm going to read these comments on the video. I think it would just be better if you got on screen and told us what was wrong with our results. I some idea how the test is going to go, but I'm not declaring anything here until the results come in.
-
Regarding an experiment of people viewing test prints, I think it would be an interesting exercise IF DONE CORRECTLY.
Absolutely agree, that's not going to happen. As to your testing protocols, I'm in full agreement.
He doesn't need to add a bunch of incorrect and confusing crap.
That's really IS the bottom line!
- Gary has shown in the video comments and here that has at least one of the following:
A. Poor reading comprehension
When I suggested that, I was called a racist. Just warning you :o
As for all your further analyses, a brilliant appraisal of the situation.
-
Eyeball, from what I've seen, colors profiles made by Adobe from RAW data (matrices + dcp) are not really accurate, sometimes even really grossly inaccurate.
A concrete example I'm playing with right now is the Panasonic GH4.
Adobe color profile (ForwardMatrix + DCP) is way off, they messed up really bad.
Based on my own measurements, I'm afraid using a camera as input is not applicable for the test Gary is trying to do.
I didn't study yet profiles made by other RAW converters vendors tho, maybe a worthwhile color accuracy could be obtained this way (depending on the camera used and the quality of the specific profile used for it)
-
I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all". Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony? Are they not accurate at all? Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?
The statement about accuracy has a great deal of credence but if you can't understand how to treat RGB working spaces, you'll never understand the difference between colorimetry and scene referred imagery and output referred imagery. Let's not even go there.
You can be interviewed or not, I'm going to read these comments on the video. I think it would just be better if you got on screen and told us what was wrong with our results. I some idea how the test is going to go, but I'm not declaring anything here until the results come in.
In no way would I have anything to do with your audience thinking I'd legitimize what you are trying to do. It's hugely flawed based on what you've told us just like your two videos.
Now what I've proposed and you've ignored is far smarter for everyone but it seems your best interest isn't at heart, let alone your audience. What you could do but will not is allow the LuLa audience to peer review the video before you post it. But what's the point. You're going to use a target that several people have already told you would invalidate the test. That alone is reason to ridicule you and anyone who has anything to do with this new video.
-
Yes, Jeff, you and I, and (mostly) everybody else on this forum can. Once again, there is an audience (e.g., Garry's audience) that can not or doesn't want to.
And you've come up with that fact how? It is a rather ridiculous statement sir. If they can navitage to Gary's video's I suspect they can make their way to DryCreek's site too.
You sound very much like Gary on his video page by suggesting beginners are simply too stupid to learn how to do this properly, it isn't so. Teach them!
With respect, yours is a much more optimistic view of the picture taking public than my own. :)
Let's start by confining the population under consideration to only those camera owners whose equipment allows them the choice of capturing in either sRGB or aRGB. (Thus confining it to those who may be, however vaguely, interested in the topic at hand.)
What fraction of that population, do you suppose, view and work with only the .jpg image?
My guess: around 80%.
And, of the latter group, what fraction own and use an editing application that is capable of converting the color space of their jpeg image?
My guess: less than 20%.
Admittedly my guesses are just "off the top of my head"; not close to any scientific sampling but just on conversations with camera owners I know.
But please don't consider this an argument against trying our best to teach the unwashed masses, or at lease avoid confusing them.
And even if my guesses are close, they provide no justification for anyone publishing such misleading explanations of color management.
-
But please don't consider this an argument against trying our best to teach the unwashed masses, or at lease avoid confusing them.
Or worse, the crux of this discussion, telling them silly nonsense but defending it by suggesting one is 'keeping it simple'. I can't accept people telling them factually incorrect information then auguring with those who point out the misinformation. That's all Gary has done since he posted the video a few days ago.
Then he comes here asking for suggestions on another video which will be filled with further incorrect information and ignores the suggestions from the very people he asks for advise. All he will achieve is a group of people who will likely (hopefully) post more comments on his site about the factual misinformation provided in the next video he can't wait to create. Talk about a guy shooting himself in the foot.
-
What is so funny about shooting two images in daylight with different color spaces?
What will this prove? If sRGB is preferred by more people, the same number of people, then sRGB is a valid color management system for photography. If AdobeRGB blows it away, then all of your work (calibrating your camera!) taking many tests under many conditions, using just the right paper, etc. won't matter because AdobeRGB is the hands-down color path to stunningly better color.
This test won't work for you, I get it. But it needs to be done to shed some light on if it is really worthwhile to have to shoot in AdobeRGB to preserve the rich color detail you're saying. People should decide if it is worth it or not, when choosing a workflow.
I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all". Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony? Are they not accurate at all? Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?
You can be interviewed or not, I'm going to read these comments on the video. I think it would just be better if you got on screen and told us what was wrong with our results. I some idea how the test is going to go, but I'm not declaring anything here until the results come in.
Not sure what you found funny, but calibrating camera is my daily job right now so I studied the relevant math, algorithms and wrote software to do that.
In the process, I compared to existing cameras and their JPEG output and learned why there was so much difference where things were supposed to be the same.
Learning about color science is a long process I believe, and countless times I realized that what I thought was correct was either wrong or a gross approximation, no doubt it will happen again.
I'm sure it's part of the learning process.
Why do you see this as sRGB VS Adobe RGB?
That doesn't make any sense, the whole premise here is inadequate.
There's not a lesser color space and a better one, both are for different usages.
sRGB is useful in a non color managed environment and introduce less banding when you're limited to only 8-bit, Adobe RGB gives a little more headroom and wider coverage that gets handy if you output on a device that has wider than Rec.709 / sRGB gamut.
Also, IMHO both are so limited they're completely outdated and it's very much the time to upgrade to wider gamuts for shooting, edition and display.
Incoming standards are Rec.2020 and also HDR displays, and instead most people are looking in the past.
Today we have dozen of millions of AMOLED displays on consumer products with gamut much wider than anything discussed here so far. It's not even about tomorrow: Its real since the Galaxy S, 5 years ago.
About your test, the methodology is indeed invalid.
You can test one variable at a time.
Either:
- Calibrated camera in sRGB against Adobe RGB -> calibrated printer -> eyes
Or:
- Camera in calibrated RAW -> Output in sRGB against Adobe RGB -> calibrated printer -> eyes
In your experiment, you have too many variables.
- Uncablibrated camera is a variable
- sRGB or Adobe RGB is a variable
- Uncalibrated printer is a variable
The logic says: you cannot test three variables in a single test.
And yes that's correct, digital cameras are not calibrated.
Well, to be more precise: All of them are calibrated (with more or less accuracy), then a custom look is applied.
This is the reason why often one can identify an untouched picture from a Sony camera (tends to have a cold tone), Panasonic camera (typically: muted yellows turning greens), Olympus (vibrant pleasing colors most people like out of the box). Canon look is pretty significant too.
I don't need to alter them their colors are not accurate, it's intentional and most of the time a visual trademark.
Well if you want me to talk in a video why not, that could be fun.
Know that I will have no problem identifying and describing methodologies and misconception in a test tho, I don't care if you use my name, people know me for my work and results already.
-
Perhaps this thread is not the best place for this question, but since it has Andrew's attention, I will give it a try:
Andrew, much earlier in this thread you made two comments which cause me to scratch my head; admittedly a head not overflowing with color management knowledge.
GF: "if you had an aRGB file you would have to convert to sRGB before uploading to web"
AR: "No, you wouldn't. ............ not on the web with a color managed browser. It's a good idea to convert to sRGB for those that don't have a color managed browser. And as I tried to point out to you, Adobe RGB (1998) in a non color managed browser would look fine on my wide gamut display, sRGB would not."
AR: "If you provide me with an sRGB image and I view it on my wide gamut display without a color managed app, it looks poor."
What I don't understand is why an sRGB image would display poorly in a non color managed application/browser on a wide gamut display.
Would it look better on a monitor which was not wide gamut?
Further, why would an aRGB image look fine in a non color managed application/browser when using a wide gamut display, but (presumably) not so fine when viewed on a monitor which was not wide gamut?
I am assuming here that "non color managed" means an application/browser which simply disregards any color space tags attached to the image (if present), and assumes all images are in sRGB.
-
I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all". Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony? Are they not accurate at all? Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?
Well, actually, this is a true statement (one of the first you've made). Both Nikon and Canon (and any other camera that does on-board raw-JPEG conversions) steps all over the camera color as captured in raw. They all produce "Looks" that render the raw to JPEG. Both Nikon and Canon have the ability to apply different looks. So, what camera look are you gonna pick for your test. If Canon, "Neutral" is the most accurate, the rest are all flavored by secret sauce.
You really, REALLY don't want to say "accurate" and Out of the Camera in the same breath.
BTW, all the camera makers are using highly tweaked methods of getting the camera color into either sRGB or ARGB. They are using non-standard color transforms that massage out of gamut color into the JPEGs. Ironically, neither ACR nor LR can match the hand tuned color conversions from camera color to sRGB or ARGB in the same way using standard color space transforms because normal RGB>RGB color spaces are all locked into RelCol rendering-unless you get the beta V4 ICC profiles for color spaces from color.org. I have the beta V4 sRGB and use it when going from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB. It does a better job of the color transform when converting colors in gamut in ProPhoto RGB to out of gamut colors in sRGB.
So far, all of your explanations and justifications are falling flat. Your new "test" isn't going to show you anything useful–not if you are correctly transforming for the correct output profile. The ColorChecker is not gonna "stress" the color gamut of either sRGB nor ARGB (except as noted about cyan).
You are spinning your wheels trying to devise some sort of test to prove what you think you know, and that is simply un-scientic. In science you come up with the theory and you do the proper tests to prove the theories and let the chips fall where they may. The problem is, the tests have to be neutral and scientifically designed to fully test the theory. That's what you've failed to do to date and based on what you'v written, it's not likely your tests will "prove" much of anything (other than cyan will clip in sRGB and not clip in ARGB).
BTW, I won't even bring up Rendering Intents because, well, your tests of ColorChecker shots won't stress any gamut mapping.
Ya know, if you want to teach this stuff, it would be useful if you knew this stuff...
--edited for two typos---
-
BTW, all the camera makers are using highly tweaked methods of getting the camera color into either sRGB or ARGB. They are using non-standard color transforms that massage out of gamut color into the JPEGs. Ironically, neither ACR nor LR can match the hand tuned color conversions from camera color to sRGB or ARGB in the same way using standard color space transforms because normal RGB>RGB color spaces are all locked into RelCol rendering-unless you get the beta V4 ICC profiles for color spaces from color.org. I have the beta V4 sRGB and use it when going from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB. It does a better job of the color transform when converting colors in gamut in ProPhoto RGB to out of gamut colors in sRGB.
Good to know.
Would you have a study or analysis that has been published somewhere to share?
After what you described, I'm curious to see if the common practice in camera is to fine tune how out of gamut colors and highlights get treated separately for sRGB and Adobe RGB.
Or if it has been shown some use different color profiles depending on the output.
Something that would lead to significant difference between sRGB camera JPEG output and Adobe RGB converted to sRGB, both for what's within the gamut and out.
-
... Why do you see this as sRGB VS Adobe RGB?
That doesn't make any sense, the whole premise here is inadequate....
Because, when you get a new camera and go through set-up, this is the question you need to answer: sRGB or aRGB?
-
Because, when you get a new camera and go through set-up, this is the question you need to answer: sRGB or aRGB?
Exactly, sRGB or Adobe RGB ;)
-
Good to know.
Would you have a study or analysis that has been published somewhere to share?
Nothing published...but both Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan (ACR engineers) have tested and proven that the camera color (raw) to on-board JPEG in sRGB and ARGB are "non-standard" renderings with hand tuned tweaks to "make gamut clipping better". Neither Canon nor Nikon will admit to this of course, it's all "secret sauce".
It's pretty easy to test, just shoot a raw + JPEG, and try to take the raw and convert to sRGB or ARGB in ACR/LR...neither ACR nor LR are capable of taming out of gamut colors to match the OOC JPEGs.
It's actually something Thomas and Eric are "looking at" (meaning researching with the eye towards improving).
-
Gary Fong:
Unfortunately you are continuing to parade your ignorance about colour management.
You stating that colour management is subjective is at the root of your misunderstanding.
While colour perception may be subjective - it is highly likely that several viewers viewing the same colour will NOT perceive that colour in exactly the same way, colour management is, in contradistinction, by definition, based on objective facts and is an attempt to standardise colour across different input and output platforms.
As for your current stated plan for your grand experiment, it has already been pointed out that it is completely unscientific fud. I am sorry fud is the only appropriate word to describe what you are proposing.
In summary, your surprise that cameras may not be 'calibrated' to produce accurate colour only serves to confirm that you are indeed ignorant in the realm of colour management.
You have a great opportunity here to actually learn some things but it seems to me that all you want to do is confirm your ignorant prejudices.
This forum is populated with many individuals who do stand as acknowledged experts in the field of colour management - Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney are only two.
My advice is to learn from them.
Expecting them to respect your opinions when they are so clearly wrong is frankly pie in the sky.
At the very least you need to sit down and read a good primer on colour management - from start to finish - since your current perceptions of colour management are so warped on so many levels.
Currently it is impossible to engage in a useful discussion about colour management with you - we are simply not talking the same language.
Tony Jay
-
If you have a color managed browser and upload images with embedded profiles, they will preview correctly as they do in Photoshop, Lightroom etc. So in theory yes, you could upload Adobe RGB (1998) data with an embedded profile and Safari as an example, would preview that data correctly.
But what about non color managed browsers? They would not preview the data correctly. Unless you were viewing Adobe RGB (1998) in a wide gamut display. So since the web is a great mass of uncalibrated, profiled displays and lots of non color managed browsers, sRGB is the best color space to use as it's closest to all those non wide gamut displays. But that doesn't mean they are sRGB as that color space is defined. Just close.
-
What I don't understand is why an sRGB image would display poorly in a non color managed application/browser on a wide gamut display.
Would it look better on a monitor which was not wide gamut?
Further, why would an aRGB image look fine in a non color managed application/browser when using a wide gamut display, but (presumably) not so fine when viewed on a monitor which was not wide gamut?
I am assuming here that "non color managed" means an application/browser which simply disregards any color space tags attached to the image (if present), and assumes all images are in sRGB.
Had Gary Fong given a real explanation of what was going on, you would probably be able to answer this question from his information. But this question is pretty unanswerable using Fong-theory rainbows and switching monitor profiles.
Here's what's going on:
If you give me an sRGB color like [0, 255, 0] — that's the brightest, most-saturated green possible in sRGB. If I just take those numbers and send them to display system with no color management whatsoever, the display is going to output its brightest, most saturated green. If that display is a device like an iPhone with a gamut very similar to sRGB, these two versions of green will be almost the same. But if that display is a wide gamut display its brightest most saturated green is going to be a substantially different color.
Going the other direction, suppose I have AdobeRGB's visual equivalent of sRGB (0, 255, 0). That color is about (144, 255, 60) in AdobeRGB. In a color managed environment sRGB (0, 255, 0) and AdobeRGB (144, 255, 60) will match visually. In sRGB this color represents 100% saturation, but in AdobeRGB it represents only about 77% saturation. So what happens if I send the AdobeRGB numbers to sRGB-like display? It will send the numbers (144, 255, 60) directly to output, so rather than getting 100% of the display's saturation I only get about 77% resulting in a duller-than-expected color. If I send those numbers to a wide-gamut display with characteristics similar to AdobeRGB, 77% of it's most saturated green will closer to what we were aiming for.
Of course all of these scenarios can be avoided in a color managed environment where the system would convert colors to the output profile before displaying them.
-
Great, then the data points are only valid for those friends unless you wish to extrapolate that the rest of Gary's audience or potential audience fall into the came camp and I don't know how you'd prove that...
Easily. I can extrapolate, because that what statistical polling does: takes a sample of the population and extrapolates the result. The sample size really does not have to be that big, only a couple of hundred people.
Let's take the most commonly used combination in polling: 95% confidence (i.e., one standard deviation from the mean) and 5% margin of error. In that case, you only need a sample size between 306 people and 384 people if your population ranges between 1,500 people and 300,000,000 million (i.e., the population of the U.S.) If you want to reduce the margin of error to just 1%, the sample size for the whole U.S. is less than ten thousand (9603, to be precise).
Since the population of photographers that constitute Garry's audience is most likely above 1,500 (but less than the population of the U.S.), I can safely say that I met between 300 people and 400 people in my 40 years of involvement with photography (that are similar to my friends and acquaintances I mentioned above) to make such an extrapolation.
-
Nothing published...but both Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan (ACR engineers) have tested and proven that the camera color (raw) to on-board JPEG in sRGB and ARGB are "non-standard" renderings with hand tuned tweaks to "make gamut clipping better". Neither Canon nor Nikon will admit to this of course, it's all "secret sauce".
It's pretty easy to test, just shoot a raw + JPEG, and try to take the raw and convert to sRGB or ARGB in ACR/LR...neither ACR nor LR are capable of taming out of gamut colors to match the OOC JPEGs.
It's actually something Thomas and Eric are "looking at" (meaning researching with the eye towards improving).
Okay got it :)
The same ACR will then use proprietary method as well to re-implement those image tuning as dcp profiles.
Those DCP contain a lot already provided you're able to visualize the data contained, you probably saw this diagram already (https://www.hansvaneijsden.com/colorchecker-perfect-skin-colors/profiletwisting/), from Hans van Eijsden (https://www.hansvaneijsden.com/colorchecker-perfect-skin-colors/) article, using dcptools
And from dcptool author, http://chromasoft.blogspot.fr/2009/02/visualizing-dng-camera-profiles-part-1.html, http://chromasoft.blogspot.fr/2009/02/visualizing-dng-camera-profiles-part-2.html, http://chromasoft.blogspot.fr/2009/02/visualizing-dng-camera-profiles-part-3.html
For Adobe, sharing more than the profiles themselves is not necessary.
However, even if not trivial it's not too difficult to replicate using 3D LUTs. In ACR it's implemented using huesatmap as described in DNG specs instead.
It's secret sauce only to a certain extent as we can observe and measure it :)
A good demonstration of why and how commercial cameras output is intentionally not color-accurate, and it's likely to be visible even on a picture of a ColorChecker.
-
Exactly, sRGB or Adobe RGB ;)
Or raw something for some reason Gary is afraid to use but would aid greatly in the currently utterly flawed video he is proposing.
-
Since the population of photographers that constitute Garry's audience is most likely above 1,500, I can safely say that I met between 300 people and 400 people in my 40 years of involvement with photography (that are similar to my friends and acquaintances I mentioned above) to make such an extrapolation.
OK, even if I do accept this as fact, what justification have you got for defending Gary's flawed two videos if any?
-
Or worse, the crux of this discussion, telling them silly nonsense but defending it by suggesting one is 'keeping it simple'. I can't accept people telling them factually incorrect information then auguring with those who point out the misinformation. That's all Gary has done since he posted the video a few days ago.
Then he comes here asking for suggestions on another video which will be filled with further incorrect information and ignores the suggestions from the very people he asks for advise. All he will achieve is a group of people who will likely (hopefully) post more comments on his site about the factual misinformation provided in the next video he can't wait to create. Talk about a guy shooting himself in the foot.
I didn't come here asking questions about the test. I just want to know why you think it's going to be flawed when I do the commercial application of a very simple test. A photo will be taken one after another of a color image, and kept in that workflow, to see if people can tell the difference. This is because I have never seen such a enormous discussion about why it is so important to do exactly a refined workflow.
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine. If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous - people can really tell the AdobeRGB is better. If not, then well, you are arguing over subtle differences that most people can't even pick up.
-
Okay got it :)...
...A good demonstration of why and how commercial cameras output is intentionally not color-accurate, and it's likely to be visible even on a picture of a ColorChecker.
Absolutely!
Tony Jay
-
OK, even if I do accept this as fact, what justification have you got for defending Gary's flawed two videos if any?
I do not defend it, at least not in its entirety. You will remember that I was among the first to say he got the message right, but explanation wrong (especially the rainbow part). Just how wrong, and just how much that matters is where we seem to disagree. In scientific circles, his wrongs might seem so significant that the universe might collapse if we do not stop him. In the world of his audience, I do not think it matters much to them.
-
I didn't come here asking questions about the test. I just want to know why you think it's going to be flawed when I do the commercial application of a very simple test. A photo will be taken one after another of a color image, and kept in that workflow, to see if people can tell the difference. This is because I have never seen such a enormous discussion about why it is so important to do exactly a refined workflow.
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine. If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous - people can really tell the AdobeRGB is better. If not, then well, you are arguing over subtle differences that most people can't even pick up.
Well you're free to ignore what everyone is saying, including how the test methodology is flawed.
I took the time to explain this in 2 messages, one simple and another one a bit more in depth.
You could also try to elaborate a test that has a chance of bringing useful results, up to you.
That would be more interesting.
-
I didn't come here asking questions about the test. I just want to know why you think it's going to be flawed when I do the commercial application of a very simple test.
You've been told more than once! Is this again the reading comprehension issue? The target is all wrong. The mode of capture is less than ideal.
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine.
Look, if you want the test to produce a predetermined outcome, just tell us and we'll produce something that tells you exactly what you want to hear. Then we can dismiss the test. If you really want to know what the differences in output looks like using sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998) I provided a very, very simple test with an image that exists and all you have to do now is correctly treat the data upon output to the correct kind of device (a pro inkjet as you point out but don't define).
If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous
You've been provided numerous and well thought out methods for doing this and dismissed or ignored them. You're just wasting everyone’s time here but since you say your video will link to these discussions, it does at least allow those who wish to understand the level of your B.S. factor to be gauged by reading your posts.
-
I didn't come here asking questions about the test. I just want to know why you think it's going to be flawed when I do the commercial application of a very simple test. A photo will be taken one after another of a color image, and kept in that workflow, to see if people can tell the difference. This is because I have never seen such a enormous discussion about why it is so important to do exactly a refined workflow.
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine. If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous - people can really tell the AdobeRGB is better. If not, then well, you are arguing over subtle differences that most people can't even pick up.
Gary, you've been told why it's flawed and are choosing to ignore it. The largest problem is that, with one exception, the color checker patches all fit within the sRGB gamut. If you use a proper workflow the prints will be identical. Any difference between these prints will the results of errors in your workflow, not differences of the colorspaces.
-
I do not defend it, at least not in its entirety. You will remember that I was among the first to say he got the message right, but explanation wrong (especially the rainbow part).
Good, then we agree and can move on. Maybe you can help Gary with this new testing protocols, the few of us who've tried are getting nowhere.
-
Good, then we agree and can move on. Maybe you can help Gary with this new testing protocols, the few of us who've tried are getting nowhere.
Same, I enjoyed talking to you guys as newcomer on this forum.
But the various attempts at helping Gary didn't seem to produce much results so far, so that's enough time spend on that.
I look forward discussing with you on other stuff :)
-
Mark,
Many thanks for this very lucid explanation.
Here's what's going on:
If you give me an sRGB color like [0, 255, 0] — that's the brightest, most-saturated green possible in sRGB. If I just take those numbers and send them to display system with no color management whatsoever, the display is going to output its brightest, most saturated green. If that display is a device like an iPhone with a gamut very similar to sRGB, these two versions of green will be almost the same. But if that display is a wide gamut display its brightest most saturated green is going to be a substantially different color.
Going the other direction, suppose I have AdobeRGB's visual equivalent of sRGB (0, 255, 0). That color is about (144, 255, 60) in AdobeRGB. In a color managed environment sRGB (0, 255, 0) and AdobeRGB (144, 255, 60) will match visually. In sRGB this color represents 100% saturation, but in AdobeRGB it represents only about 77% saturation. So what happens if I send the AdobeRGB numbers to sRGB-like display? It will send the numbers (144, 255, 60) directly to output, so rather than getting 100% of the display's saturation I only get about 77% resulting in a duller-than-expected color. If I send those numbers to a wide-gamut display with characteristics similar to AdobeRGB, 77% of it's most saturated green will closer to what we were aiming for.
Of course all of these scenarios can be avoided in a color managed environment where the system would convert colors to the output profile before displaying them.
-
... Learning about color science is a long process I believe, and countless times I realized that what I thought was correct was either wrong or a gross approximation, no doubt it will happen again...
Exactly.
However, we are, but Garry's audience is not the one willing to embark on that long journey, full of trials and errors, reading books on the subject, white papers, four-hour videos, downloading beta software, searching web, buy wide-gamut monitors, profiling devices, etc., etc. just so they can answer the question "shall I use sRGB or Adobe RGB so that I can post it to Facebook or send it to lab for printing."
-
I didn't come here asking questions about the test. I just want to know why you think it's going to be flawed when I do the commercial application of a very simple test. A photo will be taken one after another of a color image, and kept in that workflow, to see if people can tell the difference. This is because I have never seen such a enormous discussion about why it is so important to do exactly a refined workflow.
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine. If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous - people can really tell the AdobeRGB is better. If not, then well, you are arguing over subtle differences that most people can't even pick up.
Gary for your test to have any scientific credentials it needs to control for all variables except the one that is being tested.
Your proposal has so many uncontrolled variables that it would be impossible to draw any useful conclusions since whatever was found it would not be possible to work out why there were any differences or similarities in the test results.
This has already been pointed out complete with details! Yes.
There are plenty of PhD's and engineers who frequent this site who can help you plan a series of tests that actually pass scientific muster.
You stating that "I didn't come here asking questions about the test" is again not constructive.
Currently it matters little what results you get - they will have absolutely no credibility.
My previous suggestion to actually learn about colour management from scratch still stands.
Tony Jay
-
However, we are, but Garry's audience is not the one willing to embark on that long journey, full of trials and errors, reading books on the subject, white papers, four-hour videos, downloading beta software, searching web, buy wide-gamut monitors, profiling devices, etc., etc. just so they can answer the question "shall I use sRGB or Adobe RGB so that I can post it to Facebook or send it to lab for printing."
That's still not the reason to spread BS about it.
-
However, we are, but Garry's audience is not the one willing to embark on that long journey, full of trials and errors, reading books on the subject, white papers, four-hour videos, downloading beta software, searching web, buy wide-gamut monitors, profiling devices, etc., etc. just so they can answer the question "shall I use sRGB or Adobe RGB so that I can post it to Facebook or send it to lab for printing."
Many of us were at the same place as Gary's audience and moved on to understand some of these concepts. As I told Gary in one of my first posts to him, (aside from not taking the suggestions personally) is that none of us are born with a knowledge of color, color management or imaging. And yes, we have to decide to work on that understanding, something Gary refuses to do based on his numerous posts here and on his two video sites. Ultimately, whatever misunderstanding these beginners receive that could result in poor results or a desire to ignore the topic are largely Gary's fault. He's apparently beyond help. I'd hope that some of his audience isn't and will read the feedback from those who called him out and maybe come here for useful information.
Ultimately this hasn’t been at all a waste of time. We gained a few new intelligent posters (with one notable exception). There is a paper trail of Gary's writings that he says he'll link to and if not, others will. We made a valid attempt to try to reason with him. It's all here in B&W. So there was something to be gained.
-
Also, IMHO both are so limited they're completely outdated and it's very much the time to upgrade to wider gamuts for shooting, edition and display.
Incoming standards are Rec.2020 and also HDR displays, and instead most people are looking in the past.
Today we have dozen of millions of AMOLED displays on consumer products with gamut much wider than anything discussed here so far. It's not even about tomorrow: Its real since the Galaxy S, 5 years ago.
About your test, the methodology is indeed invalid.
You can test one variable at a time.
Either:
- Calibrated camera in sRGB against Adobe RGB -> calibrated printer -> eyes
Or:
- Camera in calibrated RAW -> Output in sRGB against Adobe RGB -> calibrated printer -> eyes
In your experiment, you have too many variables.
- Uncablibrated camera is a variable
- sRGB or Adobe RGB is a variable
- Uncalibrated printer is a variable
The logic says: you cannot test three variables in a single test.
And yes that's correct, digital cameras are not calibrated.
Well, to be more precise: All of them are calibrated (with more or less accuracy), then a custom look is applied.
This is the reason why often one can identify an untouched picture from a Sony camera (tends to have a cold tone), Panasonic camera (typically: muted yellows turning greens), Olympus (vibrant pleasing colors most people like out of the box). Canon look is pretty significant too.
I don't need to alter them their colors are not accurate, it's intentional and most of the time a visual trademark.
Well if you want me to talk in a video why not, that could be fun.
Know that I will have no problem identifying and describing methodologies and misconception in a test tho, I don't care if you use my name, people know me for my work and results already.
Absolutely right about all the handheld display devices. I just pulled up my website on my Samsung S5 phone and the colors are amazing, actually look a little better than on my wide gamut NEC monitor. I didn't do anything special other than using the LR web gallery maker which produces sRGB JPGs. I'm going to have to do some experimenting to see if I go to a wider gamut assignment what the results look like. It would be nice if LR gives us the option of assigning a different profile in the web gallery section. I think they do in the normal export tool in the Library.
I agree with you and others about all the variables in this "test." It's really like the listening tests of high end audio equipment that were also poorly conceived. I'm pretty biased in this regard having spent my working career in the biopharmaceutical industry where months are spent designing clinical trials to show safety and efficacy of new drugs. IMO the current test as outlined by Gary is a fool's errand.
-
Absolutely right about all the handheld display devices. I just pulled up my website on my Samsung S5 phone and the colors are amazing, actually look a little better than on my wide gamut NEC monitor. I didn't do anything special other than using the LR web gallery maker which produces sRGB JPGs. I'm going to have to do some experimenting to see if I go to a wider gamut assignment what the results look like. It would be nice if LR gives us the option of assigning a different profile in the web gallery section. I think they do in the normal export tool in the Library.
Super AMOLED displays primaries correspond to no existing standard, and the gamma response is between 2.35 and 2.5 average depending on models and samples so you won't find an ICC profile to get color accuracy unless you make it yourself ^^
It's not Adobe RGB at all despite recent claims from Samsung marketing, but in case there's interest here I shall develop that in another thread.
That's a worthy experiment even-though no tool existing currently is able to do that correctly (because generating full screen patterns)
-
Can people tell the difference, and if not, is it worth venturing out of the sRGB color space? That's all I want to determine. If AdobeRGB is so great, then let the results show that it's nearly unanimous - people can really tell the AdobeRGB is better. If not, then well, you are arguing over subtle differences that most people can't even pick up.
Again YOUR test is a non-starter because you are shooting a ColorChecker chart that has only one color out of gamut for sRGB. You need to be shooting colors outside of sRGB but within ARGB for your test to make any sense doing...otherwise you are spinning your wheels, proving nothing. But hey, it's your time if you want to waste it. You do your test and publish and we'll all come and blow it up and point out all the errors (which is what we are trying to keep you from doing now).
-
Eyeball, from what I've seen, colors profiles made by Adobe from RAW data (matrices + dcp) are not really accurate, sometimes even really grossly inaccurate.
A concrete example I'm playing with right now is the Panasonic GH4.
Adobe color profile (ForwardMatrix + DCP) is way off, they messed up really bad.
Based on my own measurements, I'm afraid using a camera as input is not applicable for the test Gary is trying to do.
Whether the raw developer used does a perfect job of representing "accurate" color just doesn't seem that important to me for the experiment I outlined. The key comparison is between two versions of the same image - one output in sRGB and one in AdobeRGB. My assumption would be that any inaccuracies in the raw development would impact both version equally or nearly so.
-
Whether the raw developer used does a perfect job of representing "accurate" color just doesn't seem that important to me for the experiment I outlined. The key comparison is between two versions of the same image - one output in sRGB and one in AdobeRGB. My assumption would be that any inaccuracies in the raw development would impact both version equally or nearly so.
Oh I said that after assuming Gary would ask people to compare prints with the physical colorchecker target itself.
But that was speculation, he didn't go as far when describing his test.
-
Super AMOLED displays primaries correspond to no existing standard, and the gamma response is between 2.35 and 2.5 average depending on models and samples so you won't find an ICC profile to get color accuracy unless you make it yourself ^^
It's not Adobe RGB at all despite recent claims from Samsung marketing, but in case there's interest here I shall develop that in another thread.
That's a worthy experiment even-though no tool existing currently is able to do that correctly (because generating full screen patterns)
If only I could get my i1 Pro to read ArgyllCMS patches from my Android phone I would be able to prepare a profile! ;D
-
If only I could get my i1 Pro to read ArgyllCMS patches from my Android phone I would be able to prepare a profile! ;D
Sure you can! Use the Web target :) You can do that easier with the help of DispcalGUI.
But big warning: measurements will be off in terms of gamma curves (and as a result saturation) as patterns will likely be full screen, tripping Samsung's panel's dynamic contrast algorithm that cannot be disabled.
-
Whether the raw developer used does a perfect job of representing "accurate" color just doesn't seem that important to me for the experiment I outlined. The key comparison is between two versions of the same image - one output in sRGB and one in AdobeRGB. My assumption would be that any inaccuracies in the raw development would impact both version equally or nearly so.
Agreed and why I suggested Gary could take my printer test file. Or the Roman 16's, or Bill Atkinsion's Tango scanned images (Lab) and convert to the two color spaces in question and print them. That he is going to use the wrong target and shoot two variations isn't necessary and will skew the results hugely. But that's fine. He'll come up with some ridiculous conclusions about what people tell him about the prints. In a nutshell, if someone were to propose the worst possible way to test the two color spaces for a print, Gary has come up with it.
And again, what's the point of all this nonsense anyway? If X number of people prefer one color space over the other, assuming Gary even prints them correctly which is questionable, it will in no way defend the silly flat earth color theories in the two video's he refuses to fix or delete. So now we'll get a 3rd idiotic video from Gary. He's just trying to gather attention for himself from the unsuspecting 'students' he hopes will sign up and pay for more idiotic videos. He's learning from Rockwell. In his video, towards the end, there's a pitch for his "premium channel".
Best thing to do is just let him do his video and get a good laugh out of it.
-
It's not Adobe RGB at all despite recent claims from Samsung marketing, but in case there's interest here I shall develop that in another thread.
It should potentially have more gamut in saturated shadows than AdobeRGB, which is desirable for those who are making prints, as that's usually the part that LCD is lacking. I suppose all LCD desktop, laptop, TV and mobile displays will be replaced by OLED in near future (and conventional projectors with laser projectors).
As for the srgb-centeric wet mini lab printers, all newer Noritsu since 37HD series can automatically recognise and print correctly AdobeRGB rendered images, large format printers like Chromira etc. have classic ICC colour management module, and all Frontiers have easily accessible mode where you're not limited to sRGB rendered content. Wet mini labs will be replaced by dry (dye based inkjet) in future, with more gamut than Endura/DP2 c-prints and ability to print from any colour space.
Oh, and BTW any 100$ desktop inkjet printer can "handle" AdobeRGB (and any other colour space) renderded images, and usually have quite huge gamut, far beyond sRGB.
So much for sRGB-like devices - sooner or later they'll gonna share same fate as ColorMatch RGB Apple Trinitron CRT displays.
-
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."
The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam, Verse XXVII
-
Have I got this right? Gary is going to conduct a test where he shoots the same target with in camera JPEGs set to sRGB and AdobeRGB. Then send them to a pro lab requesting only sRGB images. Knowing they will treat any image as if it were sRGB. Basically assigning it a colorspace much like changing the display as in the video.
So Gary is going to "prove" that if you don't know what you are doing you should just stay with sRGB. That was never contested. But Gary can say that he was right, just look at the dull colors. No one here is going to change their mind, Gary hopes it all blows over and we all just wasted our time.
-
Have I got this right? Gary is going to conduct a test where he shoots the same target with in camera JPEGs set to sRGB and AdobeRGB. Then send them to a pro lab requesting only sRGB images. Knowing they will treat any image as if it were sRGB. Basically assigning it a colorspace much like changing the display as in the video.
So Gary is going to "prove" that if you don't know what you are doing you should just stay with sRGB. That was never contested. But Gary can say that he was right, just look at the dull colors. No one here is going to change their mind, Gary hopes it all blows over and we all just wasted our time.
Ridiculous isn't it.
What is even more ridiculous is that Gary has no idea how ridiculous it is.
Tony Jay
-
This is a common misunderstanding among photographers who make c-prints in mini labs, that mostly use kind of device link profile conversion from sRGB to emulsion profile as default, so the results from AdobeRGB (or any colour space other than sRGB) are awful. Take QSS 37/38xxHD, Chromira, Lambda or profiled Frontier running in PD mode, and the whole theory goes haywire.
-
No one here is going to change their mind, Gary hopes it all blows over and we all just wasted our time.
My point, exactly: you have all just wasted your time.
-
My point, exactly: you have all just wasted your time.
Will Crockett finally removed his revelations about colour spaces from his website, so there's always a hope ;)
-
Have I got this right? Gary is going to conduct a test where he shoots the same target with in camera JPEGs set to sRGB and AdobeRGB. Then send them to a pro lab requesting only sRGB images. Knowing they will treat any image as if it were sRGB. Basically assigning it a colorspace much like changing the display as in the video.
So Gary is going to "prove" that if you don't know what you are doing you should just stay with sRGB. That was never contested. But Gary can say that he was right, just look at the dull colors. No one here is going to change their mind, Gary hopes it all blows over and we all just wasted our time.
No. I am going to Capture in sRGB and print in sRGB, then capture in AdobeRGB and print in AdobeRGB. Same camera, same light balance, same exposure, same light source, same printer. Just two different gamuts. I'm also going to do one in AdobeRGB and print in sRGB. Trust me, I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind here. I'm trying to help the photography enthusiast, and the way I'm going to do it is show them, using both workflows, real world results - and let the public vote on which one is the best.
Using those results, I'm going to do a detailed video on the heated debate of AdobeRGB and sRGB. I am here to take quotes from responses so I can address them in the video. I say let the public decide if there is a huge debate.
I'm not here to convince you all - you all enjoy what you are doing immensely and appear to be quite proud of your accomplishments. I'm not going to change anybody's minds. This is for the DSLR/Mirrorless consumer.
-
Ridiculous isn't it.
What is even more ridiculous is that Gary has no idea how ridiculous it is.
Tony Jay
Read the test again Tony Jay. Nobody said the output was going to be sRGB. It'll be AdobeRGB capture to AdobeRGB output, sRGB capture to sRGB output, and we will let the public decide. No change in lighting, camera, color setting, exposure, no post production, no embedding of profiles. Straight out of the camera to print device. Same camera. One variable.
I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it will be a great way for people who want to make a choice between the two to help them decide.
You all do not seem confident that AdobeRGB is going to smoke sRGB in the results. Why not? Isn't what this is all about? All of this is so that the buying public not get misled down the sRGB only path?
If you all are right, you have nothing to worry about.
-
My point, exactly: you have all just wasted your time.
I don't hope it all blows over, or you don't know me very well. This is great information for me.
Your comments are being collected by us to address in a documentary style YouTube. If I wanted it to blow over, I would remove the video and not be here.
I know I'm not going to convince any of you. But why aren't you all welcoming the test? If I stick to an all-AdobeRGB path from camera to AdobeRGB print - it is going to blow away the sRGB print right?
I have heard nobody predict that it will. Who here will go on record and say that the AdobeRGB test will show a vastly improved color than the sRGB test. Why not make your own test? You can then send your prints to me, and I'll put it up in my public sample. In fact, that's a good idea. Give us your best shot, but also make one in sRGB to sRGB print. Send us the file too.
-
I have done that, using Bill Atkinson's test target. Some fields were separated in Adobe RGB but in sRGB. The obvious differences were in the bluish greens. With correctly managed colours the differences were small between the prints.
Best regards
Erik
No. I am going to Capture in sRGB and print in sRGB, then capture in AdobeRGB and print in AdobeRGB. Same camera, same light balance, same exposure, same light source, same printer. Just two different gamuts. I'm also going to do one in AdobeRGB and print in sRGB. Trust me, I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind here. I'm trying to help the photography enthusiast, and the way I'm going to do it is show them, using both workflows, real world results - and let the public vote on which one is the best.
Using those results, I'm going to do a detailed video on the heated debate of AdobeRGB and sRGB. I am here to take quotes from responses so I can address them in the video. I say let the public decide if there is a huge debate.
I'm not here to convince you all - you all enjoy what you are doing immensely and appear to be quite proud of your accomplishments. I'm not going to change anybody's minds. This is for the DSLR/Mirrorless consumer.
-
With correctly managed colours the differences were small between the prints.
Thanks Erik.
-
Dear to all,
I am sorry, I have been working with inkjet printer for quite a while, but am not too familiar with the RGB printer such as lightjet/noritsu.
When we work with inkjet printer, we first calibrate and profile it. Then we submit an image, Adobe RGB, sRGB or whatever RGB it is embedded with it. Then select the proper printer ICC and rendering intent, let's say relative colormetric. then the color engine will map the out of gamut color, if there's any within the image, to the printer icc printable range. Then it starts to print.
Here is the question:
Gary Fong keep saying he will print an srgb embedded image with a sRGB printer. What exactly is sRGB printer? I just don't get it.
I thought calibration and profiling is to make the printer to present color in an accurate and authentic way with it's strength, but not to limit within a specific working space. Press printer might be a different process such as G7 or Fogra.
Hope someone can answer my question.
Thanks
Aaron
-
I don't hope it all blows over, or you don't know me very well. This is great information for me.
Your comments are being collected by us to address in a documentary style YouTube. If I wanted it to blow over, I would remove the video and not be here.
I know I'm not going to convince any of you. But why aren't you all welcoming the test? If I stick to an all-AdobeRGB path from camera to AdobeRGB print - it is going to blow away the sRGB print right?
I have heard nobody predict that it will. Who here will go on record and say that the AdobeRGB test will show a vastly improved color than the sRGB test. Why not make your own test? You can then send your prints to me, and I'll put it up in my public sample. In fact, that's a good idea. Give us your best shot, but also make one in sRGB to sRGB print. Send us the file too.
I did such test countless times on on various Noritsu/Agfa/Fuji/Durst/Chromira models, and have a drawer full of results on Fuji DP2/Kodak Endura supra emulsions with all sorts of surface finish, so please excuse if I won't be holding my breath.
What you're still (intentionally or not) missing is that it's not about sRGB vs AdobeRGB - it's all about misleading, unprofessional and ignorant way you're incompetently trying to explain the subject on YT.
-
I did such test countless times on on various Noritsu/Agfa/Fuji/Durst/Chromira models, and have a drawer full of results on Fuji DP2/Kodak Endura supra emulsions with all sorts of surface finish, so please excuse if I won't be holding my breath.
What you're still (intentionally or not) missing is that it's not about sRGB vs AdobeRGB - it's all about misleading, unprofessional and ignorant way you're trying to explain the subject on YT.
This whole discussion is about AdobeRGB vs sRGB. If your opinion is the last video is misleading, unprofessional, etc. then this video will have as only the information that was gleaned from the tests. Camera to print, staying in their respective color spaces, and put out for the public to vote. Will they say, "I can't really tell" or will they say, "AdobeRGB is much better"?
I still haven't heard anybody going on record saying that the AdobeRGB is going to win. Just a bunch of snipes off topic.
-
Read the test again Tony Jay. Nobody said the output was going to be sRGB. It'll be AdobeRGB capture to AdobeRGB output, sRGB capture to sRGB output, and we will let the public decide. No change in lighting, camera, color setting, exposure, no post production, no embedding of profiles. Straight out of the camera to print device. Same camera. One variable.
I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it will be a great way for people who want to make a choice between the two to help them decide.
You all do not seem confident that AdobeRGB is going to smoke sRGB in the results. Why not? Isn't what this is all about? All of this is so that the buying public not get misled down the sRGB only path?
If you all are right, you have nothing to worry about.
This test is virtually certain to produce misleading results, because you are not embedding profiles.
That's like saying "the temperature is 20 degrees, but I'm not telling you whether that's in Fahrenheit or Celsius". The accuracy of that depends entirely on whether the person hearing guesses correctly which temperature scale you're using. In the US, most people would assume you're talking of a rather chilly temperature, but in Europe most people would assume you mean a much warmer temperature.
Most print labs assume sRGB if there's no profile (and in fact most ignore embedded profiles and assume sRGB come what may), so your test is rather loaded: the sRGB image will be printed correctly and the Adobe RGB image won't. If you're using your own printer, again it will probably assume sRGB if you strip out the profile, so the Adobe RGB version will be printed incorrectly. .
It's still perfectly good advice to say to people that don't want to get into colour management "just stick to sRGB".
If the purpose of your demo is to say "most labs screw up with Adobe RGB, especially if you strip out the profile so they haven't even a chance of getting it right" then why not say that?
-
No one here is going to change their mind, Gary hopes it all blows over and we all just wasted our time.
But look what we've gained here in these few pages, introduction to the community of a new stand up comic! Based on just these pages of text, we now have a prefect advertising vehicle for Gary's new video on color management. Case in point, here's the latest marketing piece I found:
New, from the master of color management comedy, Gary Fong, comes the feel bad about color management movie of the summer! You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, then you’ll cry again when you consider the pain and confusion new users to digital imaging will have inflected on them after watching this masterpiece of misinformation.
The video has unbelievable effects; if you thought the move Runaway Train had a great train wreck, wait till you see the newest Fong video! Watch today and comment on his YouTube network and you will be entered to win a bumper sticker and pin with Gary’s new slogan:
Don’t know what sRGB is? Just use it!
and
Chromaticity diagram, we don’t need no stinkin Chromaticity diagram!
In less then a week on the YouTube circuit, the reviews are in! Here is some of the critical feedback from the JUST THE FIRST PAGE of Luminous Landscape color management forum:
RH:I first saw that one a few days ago, and it was good for a laugh. A nice mix of context-free sweeping generalizations, factual inaccuracies, conflations of different factors, and misguided folksy non-remedies for good colour.
SC:Oh wow that was painful to watch.
Textbook colorspace explained wrong if we needed another example.
MM:Watching this wreck feels a little dirty — like rubbernecking at a highway accident.
Cz:Exactly my feelings - and the whole rest was even worse, so far beyond stupid! It was a pure color management horror.
SG:This man deserves a medal. He has boldly gone where no man has gone before. Or wanted to. He has plumbed new depths. I thought I had heard and read every possible misunderstanding on colour that a sentient creature could possibly hold, but I was wrong!
Not getting enough Fong is wrong video content? Rumor is he’s working on another color management extravaganza on printing with sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998). Who will win? It is sure to be another masterpiece of miscommunicating, misunderstandings and malicious misdirection. You’ll be on the edge of your seat as Gary has done his homework on this production, asking the LuLa forum for advise on the testing and like the true artist he is, completely disregarding it. At least that’s the rumor. It’s sure to be another hilarious video with production values exceeding $3.98 with that innovative picture in picture video of the master himself, in super cool monochrome rendering. Cause who needs color?
Rated R for Ridiculous. Contains scenes of blatant misinformation and confusion. No one under the age of 95 who doesn’t know what sRGB is will be allowed to see the video without accompaniment of an adult or child who has dedicated 10 brain cells more than Gary Fong on the topic of color management. View at your own risk. Unfortunately not void let alone void where prohibited. Best viewed under the influence of narcotics.
Legal notice. Luminous Landscape and it’s members are not affiliated with Gary Fong, Gary Fong productions or the Gary Fong Flat Earth Color Management organization and do not condone, endorse or profit from his endeavors in the production of color management science fiction.
-
This test is virtually certain to produce misleading results, because you are not embedding profiles.
Most print labs assume sRGB if there's no profile (and in fact most ignore embedded profiles and assume sRGB come what may), so your test is rather loaded: the sRGB image will be printed correctly and the Adobe RGB image won't. If you're using your own printer, again it will probably assume sRGB if you strip out the profile, so the Adobe RGB version will be printed incorrectly. .
Wrong. I'm taking it to a commercial lab who will print it the AdobeRGB file in AdobeRGB output. The profile will come straight out of the camera, so this can be a direct test. Capture in output staying in their color spaces.
I've yet to hear anybody say that they are confident that this test will produce a win for AdobeRGB. Stop saying I'm going to rig the results. Assuming that it goes straight from camera to same color space, "should" AdobeRGB win the test?
-
But look what we've gained here in these few pages, introduction to the community of a new stand up comic! Based on just these pages of text, we now have a prefect advertising vehicle for Gary's new video on color management. Case in point, here's the latest marketing piece I found:
New, from the master of color management comedy, Gary Fong, comes the feel bad about color management movie of the summer! You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, then you’ll cry again when you consider the pain and confusion new users to digital imaging will have inflected on them after watching this masterpiece of misinformation. ... [/i][/size]
Instead of mocking and poking fun, how about going on the record and saying that you predict that an AdobeRGB captured image printed with AdobeRGB output is going to win over the sRGB to sRGB? Stop throwing in all these things about the test being rigged, this will be real world images, using a simple workflow.
Andrew Rodney - will the AdobeRGB print look better? Or not?
-
Can I hear from at least one person that the AdobeRGB print is going to print better (or even 'should' print better?) As it is right now, the video will say that I couldn't get one person from this forum to go on the record and say that it was going to win the contest.
Straight from camera to output. sRGB to sRGB, AdobeRGB to AdobeRGB. What will print better?
-
Gary Fong keep saying he will print an srgb embedded image with a sRGB printer. What exactly is sRGB printer? I just don't get it.
Don't try, Gray's again confused. I tried to help him understand there is no such thing. He keeps using incorrect language such as it'll be AdobeRGB capture to AdobeRGB output, sRGB capture to sRGB output. The guy is totally confused or simply can't write what he thinks is going to happen.
Gary, if you want sRGB to sRGB output, that's output to an emissive display, nothing more. Same with Adobe RGB (1998). That you keep repeating the incorrect language indicates you don't understand the topic sufficiently to even begin such a test OR you're deliberate in misdirection as to what you'll do such you can produce a video with redetermined results to suite your flat earth theories. Either way, give up. Not a single person here is taking you seriously, not one in terms of this idea for a new video. You've shot yourself in the left foot already, now you're holding a large caliber revolver towards the right foot and pressing harder on the trigger. The idea you propose is nonsensical and has no merit. No matter how many times you try to explain it, it's equally nonsensical. Clearly you have no aim of learning anything new in this test, it's flawed from the start.
Gary, why do you continue to post here that results in nothing more than making yourself look so foolish?
Do you realize the more you write, the more ammo anyone has to show others you don't have a clue about this subject? Clearly you're not here for education or advise. What's the motive other than looking like a fool?
-
Instead of mocking and poking fun, how about going on the record and saying that you predict that an AdobeRGB captured image printed with AdobeRGB output is going to win over the sRGB to sRGB? Stop throwing in all these things about the test being rigged, this will be real world images, using a simple workflow.
Andrew Rodney - will the AdobeRGB print look better? Or not?
You don't get it Gary, it doesn't matter. It will not erase the errors of your previous two videos. It will only add more ammo to prove you don't understand the topic.
And Gary, you're mocking yourself. I'm simply holding a mirror up for you to see but not only are you color blind, you're totally blind to the facts.
-
an sRGB printer is the most common wet process printer available to the public. This is RA-4 paper and chemistry, the kind you would find in most commercial labs. Ask any lab owner, call any lab in town, ask them if they print in sRGB or AdobeRGB and they will give you a firm answer.
I used to run the lab at Pictage, Inc., the largest online pro photo lab in the U.S. before we sold it. We had thousands of professional photographers, so I know what sRGB is. We also offered archival hextone prints, so I know what color profiling is.
I think you can tell by the cheap shots here who is spreading misinformation. Simply call up any lab, ask for the printer, and ask if they print in sRGB or AdobeRGB. They will tell you one or the other. They're not going to say, "sRGB doesn't exist".
And then remember what Rodney Andrew gave as an answer. I'm recording all of them. Use that to see if he is credible or not.
-
Don't try, Gray's again confused. I tried to help him understand there is no such thing. He keeps using incorrect language such as What's the motive other than looking like a fool?
I think I'll let the public decide who is the fool. I'm going to ask you a simple question that you haven't yet answered.
Is an image captured in AdobeRGB and printed in AdobeRGB going to look perceptibly better than the image shot in sRGB and printed in sRGB. Answer the question. Whether I do it or not. In general theory. Straight from camera. Is it going to or is it not?
One word answer. Yes or no. I don't need another 72 line answer. One word. Yes or no. Why can't you answer?
-
This whole discussion is about AdobeRGB vs sRGB. If your opinion is the last video is misleading, unprofessional, etc. then this video will have as only the information that was gleaned from the tests. Camera to print, staying in their respective color spaces, and put out for the public to vote. Will they say, "I can't really tell" or will they say, "AdobeRGB is much better"?
I still haven't heard anybody going on record saying that the AdobeRGB is going to win. Just a bunch of snipes off topic.
Not at all (no matter how hard you try), and it's not really fascinating. As for the test, I can save your time - here's the test I did, Chromira X5 + Fuji DP2 Lustre:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/Chromira.jpg)
First obvious difference is that... there's virtually no difference - you can't really show the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB on sRGB rendered image, so making a video is pointless. The differences that are noticeable in real life are:
- the blue sky on surfer and lake image is much more rich and vivid, so is the turquoise wave and the water - the wave is much more 3D
- the dark blue in nightscapes and underwater images is more saturated and cooler, the blue-turquise corals on underwater image is washed out on sRGB variant.
- yellow sunflowers, orange jam are a bit more saturated, but there's no night and day difference.
As one should expect, the major difference is in saturated parts in region between dark blue, blue, turquoise and phtalogreen, where AdobeRGB allows you to take advantage of Fuji DP2 dyes potential, the rest is virtually the same or almost the same.
So much for squeezed spectrum and alike theories.
-
an sRGB printer is the most common wet process printer available to the public.
Gary, do yourself a favor and look up with the sRGB color space is and was desinged for. It has nothing to do with printing.
Let me try to help, although it's pointless. The data points may be useful for a few others who migrate here after they are told what a fool you are on this topic.
This is a cut and paste from Michael Stokes who is considered the father of sRGB! It was posted in response to Jeff Schewe and myself way back in 1998 on the ColorSync forum when you still didn't have a clue about this subject. It describes how HP disinged sRGB and no, there isn't anything about printers in there because there is NO SUCH THING as an sRGB printer.
On 11/30/98 8:56 AM, "Stokes, Michael" wrote:
Jeff and Andrew,
I just ran across a couple of threads you wrote in response to a query about
sRGB. Being the color scientist behind this effort at HP, I would like to
clear up some apparent misconceptions.
1. sRGB is not base on "standard" "typical" or any other type of PC monitor,
but is directly derived from the HDTV standard ITU-R BT.709/2
2. sRGB does represent not only average PC monitors, but is within the
factory tolerances of almost all CRTs on the market today, including Barco
professional CRTs. This is due to the shared family set of P22 phosphors
which almost all CRTs use today. While this "family" of P22 phosphors has
some differences between manufacturers, these differences fall within each
manufacturer's factory tolerances. Saying that sRGB chromaticities are
"quite small" is simply saying that CRT phosphors in general are quite
small.
3. While the 2.2 gamma was directly derived from HTDV, it has been
independently verified by Sony, Barco and others to represent the native
physical state of CRTs today. It is also very close to the native human
perceptual lightness scale when viewing CRTs. This combination makes this
gamma the optimal for CRTs to physically operate at. This also goes a long
way in explaining the compatibility with Windows and PCs in general since
these systems have not imposed any arbitary or proprietary system
adjustments.
4. The white point again is derived directly from the television industry
and is the standard is televisions and also in many aspects of photography.
Achieving a bright enough D50 white point to comfortably adapt to continues
to be a technical challenge for CRT vendors.
5. I agree that there is a different in gamut shapes between sRGB and press
CMYKs. This is due the the difference in gamut shapes of CRTs in general and
press CMYKs in general. Since sRGB represents the native physical condition
of CRTs, this is an obvious outcome. I also note that the sRGB gamut in
general is significantly larger than press CMYK gamuts an most areas other
than cyan.
6. I agree that if I am in a high-end graphic arts D50 only workflow, that
sRGB is not the optimal solution and neither HP nor Microsoft claims it to
be so. On the other hand, it is the optimal solution for any display-centric
workflow such as desktop publishing in the office or home, the world wide
web or any assortment of workflows where a display plays an integral part.
7. Claiming that pure cyan in sRGB converts to 78% cyan in press CMYK is
completely dependent upon which gamut mapping technique you are using. I am
assuming you are using whatever is in Photoshop. I can tell you that this is
not the case for the gamut mapping in our own printers.
8. We've worked very hard with Pantone to provide a solid physical and
scientific foundation for their RGB representations. I am at a loss to
explain your criticims on this front and your implicit request that Pantone
base their CRT RGB palettes on something other than established standards,
physics and science. I would appreciate some input on this one.
9. Your statements that "However, I've been told that the original color
scientist from HP that
proposed this colorspace has stated that it has gone too far, that this was
a proposal ONLY for the web. . .not for printing or cameras or scanners.
I've also heard the even Microsoft is kinda backing away from sRGB for
ANYTHING other than the web." are simply untrue and I would appreciate
knowing where to go to straighten this out. I have never said that sRGB is
not for printing or cameras or scanners. I believe sRGB provides an
excellent, robust and fundamentally sound solutions for these mass markets.
HP has a lot of evidence both internally and with real customers to support
this. We also have many partners in the camera, scanner and desktop printer
businesses that have independenty confirmed this. I also believe that
Microsoft has not backed off from sRGB in any way.
10. A better web site for sRGB information is at www.srgb.com
11. I would very much like to have a discussion on the difference between
display spaces and editing spaces. I agree that a larger editing space would
be helpful, but am skeptical from my own scientific research if this can be
done in a 24bit encoding by simply changing the chromaticities without
resulting in other problems. Would you and Rodney be interested in such a
discussion?
12. Characterizing our efforts as hoodwinking seems a bit stretched since
we've gone out of our way to conform to existing international standards,
sound physics, and state of art research results.
I just wanted to clarify a few things and hope this helps,
Michael Stokes
HP
-
As for the test, I can save your time - here's the test I did, Chromira X5 + Fuji DP2 Lustre: First obvious difference is that... there's virtually no difference
OK thank you. So we have one person who has tested it and saw "virtually no difference". From a member of this forum. Nobody has come out and said that AdobeRGB is going to print better, after all of this heated discussion. In fact, I'm being told not to even bother making the video.
Oh I'm going to make the video. It'll show the consumer the exact steps, and the exact result. I'm saving all of this discussion for the video. As of this moment, I have one member saying there is virtually no difference and nobody willing to even say that in general terms the AdobeRGB to AdobeRGB is going to print better.
-
OK thank you. So we have one person who has tested it and saw "virtually no difference". From a member of this forum.
Desipere est juris gentium
-
I think I'll let the public decide who is the fool.
The public here clearly has. Do you want that I and other's post this forum URL over other areas of the net to amplify your misinformation? I'd love to.
think you can tell by the cheap shots here who is spreading misinformation.
Classic, in Gary's mind, facts are cheap shots and misinformation.
how about going on the record and saying that you predict that an AdobeRGB captured image printed with AdobeRGB output is going to win over the sRGB to sRGB?
Based on your procedures? NEVER. You're doing the test wrong Gary, don't you understand that. Why then would I or anyone besides you state anything about the test other than it's hugely flawed.
-
The explanation in Gary's video of sRGB vs. aRGB reminds me of the explanation the father of one of my childhood friends gave about how an automobile works:
"You pour water in the front and gasoline in the back and they mix in the middle and make the car go."
???
-
there is NO SUCH THING as an sRGB printer.
I suggest that you call any of the commercial labs in your town, and ask if they print in sRGB vs AdobeRGB. If there's no such thing, then he's right. If every printer in town tells you that they do one, or the other, or both, then will you believe the above quote? And the poster?
Andrew - answer the question. Is the Adobe going to print better? I have one poster saying there's virtually no difference, I have nobody else from this forum coming forward, and you will not give a simple yes or no answer.
I've gotta ask you then - what's all this controversy about? All these words, technology, quotes, jargon. What's it for? It won't produce better prints in the end? So it will only look good on your wide gamut monitor which has a web browser capable of handling the gamut? Is this the majority of the population? Or just this group?
This group who will not go on record saying the answer to a simple question. Will AdobeRGB images make better prints than an image captured in sRGB
-
No. I am going to Capture in sRGB and print in sRGB, then capture in AdobeRGB and print in AdobeRGB. Same camera, same light balance, same exposure, same light source, same printer. Just two different gamuts. I'm also going to do one in AdobeRGB and print in sRGB. Trust me, I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind here. I'm trying to help the photography enthusiast, and the way I'm going to do it is show them, using both workflows, real world results - and let the public vote on which one is the best.
It is time to pause and consider what is really going on in regard to color management. If you take a picture with a digital camera, you are are capturing in the native color space of the camera (I'm using this term loosely, as the camera does not have a fully defined color space) and the image is then rendered into the target color space, either by the camera's built in software if you are shooting in JPEG or by the raw converter if you are shooting in raw. This rendering can include adjustment of dynamic range and color gamut and is the essence of a successful rendering (see Rendering the print (http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf) by Karl Lang). In your case, you would be rendering into sRGB or Adobe RGB. If the color gamut of the scene exceeds that of the target space, color information would be lost. Otherwise, the results would be the same if the gamut of the scene fits into the narrower space.
Your term "printing in sRGB" or "printing in Adobe RGB" is confusing, since (as the Digitaldog points out) no existing printers have these spaces as their native color space. Here is where color management comes in. You would convert to the native space of the printer and would have the option of using a rendering intent for more pleasing results. If you send an image to the printer and the color space of the image is properly tagged, an intelligent printer could use this tag to convert from the source color space to the native space of the printer. Some printers (including the Noritsus and Fuji Frontiers ignore the color space tag (according to Drycreek.com) and assume that the source is sRGB and then convert to their native spaces. However, if one is using the custom Drycreek profiles, one can convert to the native color space of the printer using any of the available rendering intents. Since these profiles are large and ignored by the printer in any case, one does not embed the custom profile in the printer but rather requests that no adjustments be applied. The printer then outputs the file in its native color space.
More advanced printers would presumably read the embedded tag and then convert to the native printer color space. Thus, when "printing in sRGB" you need to know the behavior of the printer in question.
Regards,
Bill
-
I'm going to ask you a simple question that you haven't yet answered.
And I'll do the same: How will this video get you off the hook with the egregious mistakes you made in your last two videos? Based on your piss-poor track record, why should anyone here, especially me even consider answering a question about a new video that based on your own description is falwed?
-
The public here clearly has. Do you want that I and other's post this forum URL over other areas of the net to amplify your misinformation? I'd love to. Classic, in Gary's mind, facts are cheap shots and misinformation. Based on your procedures? NEVER. You're doing the test wrong Gary, don't you understand that. Why then would I or anyone besides you state anything about the test other than it's hugely flawed.
How about go on the record that you say that AdobeRGB captured files create visibly better prints than sRGB? Yes or no? One word.
Is AdobeRGB visibly superior for printing than a lab that would print it in what they would call sRGB?
One word. Yes or no. Go on the record.
-
I've yet to hear anybody say that they are confident that this test will produce a win for AdobeRGB. Stop saying I'm going to rig the results. Assuming that it goes straight from camera to same color space, "should" AdobeRGB win the test?
I already posted my predictions for a series of tests. Whether AdobeRGB would "win" such a test depends on gamut of the output device, the test image used (if the color gamut of the image doesn't exceed sRGB, then virtually no difference will be perceived), the way the color space conversions are performed, and the participants being used for the experiment.
That said, I just want to remind you that most of the criticism here is NOT about what color space is "best". That is the strawman that you throw out to misdirect people. The primary criticism is all the gobbledy-gook that you threw into the video to "support" your recommendation of why to use sRGB. I maintain that it is totally unnecessary, confusing, and will require your viewers to "unlearn" bad concepts if they ever want or need to pursue color management in a more serious way. There are many, many ways to explain simply (in LESS than 5 minutes) to a beginner audience why sRGB would be a good choice WITHOUT including a bunch of incorrect and misleading information.
Just as a reminder to everyone, here are my notes from Gary's video taken with my "beginner's goggles" on:
0:05 – I’m confused right off the bat by what he means when he says “choice”. No mention of color space, profile, or anything – just a “choice” between sRGB and adobeRGB, whatever those things are. If I’ve been playing with my camera a little bit, maybe I think he’s talking about the in-camera sRGB/adobeRGB setting (which is largely immaterial if shooting raw). If I’ve been playing around with something like Lightroom or Photoshop, maybe I think he’s talking about the working space or the output/export settings, even if I don’t totally understand “working space” or “output/export”.
0:10 – I think I understand the recommendations pretty well although I don’t know what the hell “pre-press” or “CMYK” are. I have an inkjet printer. How do I know if it’s “sophisticated” or not?
1:00 – OK. sRGB and AdobeRGB both cover the same range of colors but AdobeRGB has “more colors in-between”. (Not only WRONG, but almost exactly the opposite is true. AdobeRGB has a “wider range” (larger gamut) and it is sRGB that has “more colors in-between” (finer differentiation between neighboring RGB values) although this last point is not extremely important from a practical standpoint when comparing AdobeRGB and sRGB. ).
1:35 – OK. If I jam AdobeRGB into sRGB (whatever that means) I will lose some reds and violets. Apparently, I won’t lose any color in the middle of the spectrum. (LARGELY WRONG AND MISLEADING. I *MAY* “lose” some colors when going from AdobeRGB to sRGB but that loss may involve more than just reds and violets.)
2:45 – AdobeRGB has “dull colors” on sRGB equipment. OK, so I guess I’m screwed if I have an image in AdobeRGB and want to use an “sRGB device”. It’s going to show-up dull. (LARGELY WRONG AND MISLEADING. This only happens when the AdobeRGB image is not CONVERTED to sRGB properly. Basically, the whole video is focused on how the image will be screwed-up if not properly CONVERTED from one color space to another and yet this IS NEVER MENTIONED. The viewer is left believing that AdobeRGB images will always appear poorly on “sRGB devices”. IMO this is probably the greatest sin of the entire video.)
3:37 – You can’t see all those extra “colors in-between” that AdobeRGB has with the naked eye. If this is true, why would I EVER use AdobeRGB???? Sounds like I’d need a microscope to appreciate the difference. (LARGELY WRONG AND MISLEADING – Forgetting all the “colors in-between” crap for a moment and the fact that he is talking about conversion problems without talking about them, differences between AdobeRGB and sRGB can certainly be seen with the naked eye. The differences can be subtle and will depend on the image actually having color outside the sRGB gamut that AdobeRGB covers. Some non-photographers and beginners also may not readily see the differences when they’re there, but that is a matter of expertise in evaluating and enjoying the image – NOT of limitations of the human eye.)
= = =
I think I was pretty fair in my review and I don’t think I crossed into “nit-picking” territory (for example, “sRGB devices” when there largely are no such things and using an overly-simplified spectrum graphic instead of a 2D or 3D gamut plot).
For me, these errors and misleading statements are the big problem with the video. What color space is “best” is a red herring IMO. What color space is “best” is a value judgment (benefit – cost) and that value judgment will be made differently by different people. Personally, I have no problem generalizing that value judgment for beginners and people not interested in color management and recommending sRGB for them, based on a relatively large potential downside (dull images from bad color space conversions) and a relatively small potential upside (a little better representation of some saturated colors on output devices and media that can actually show them) for non-sRGB.
-
(LARGELY WRONG AND MISLEADING. This only happens when the AdobeRGB image is not CONVERTED to sRGB properly. Basically, the whole video is focused on how the image will be screwed-up if not properly CONVERTED from one color space to another and yet ...
The differences can be subtle and will depend on the image actually having color outside the sRGB gamut that AdobeRGB covers. Some non-photographers and beginners also may not readily see the differences when they’re there, but that is a matter of expertise in evaluating and enjoying the image
Look at the video. What does it say on the title and description?
Why Switching to AdobeRGB Images Look Dull ... and in the description, One of the most hotly debated (and extremely misunderstood) topics in digital photography is what is better, AdobeRGB or sRGB. Countless photographers report that their images, when shot in AdobeRGB appear "dull" on web browsers or wet process prints. This demonstration illustrates what happens when you shoot on a color space that is too wide for the display or print media.
Keep it within context. And thanks for the print output description.
-
How about go on the record that you say that AdobeRGB captured files create visibly better prints than sRGB?
It's such a simplistic and moronic question as posed, it can't be and shoudn't be answered!
What's better Gary, Sugar or Salt? Pick one.
In some cases, there will be no difference between the two color spaces. In some cases it will be better in Adobe RGB (1998) if range of color saturation (and the image itself) is important. It depends on the output device (print OR display). It depends on if the data was even treated correctly, something I have zero faith you have the ability to do with your video.
What's better Gary, Color or B&W. Answer! Which one. Go on record so we can have others dismiss an answer to a question that doesn't deserve an answer.
None of this changes the misinformation of your two video's on color. Not a lick. No matter how hard you try misdirection, you're simply not smart enough with this audience for that trick to work.
This demonstration illustrates what happens when you shoot on a color space that is too wide for the display or print media.
No, it doesn't. It illustrates your misunderstanding of basic color management and poor teachings. It illustrates what happens when people as cluless about the subject as you, confuse and mistreat sRGB as Adobe RGB or vise versa. That's wrong! Don't do it. There is nothing wrong with sRGB or Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB but there are things users do when handling that data that is wrong and will result in over saturated colors, not dull colors using exactly the same incorrect handling you've shown. That you don't understand or accpet that is simply shocking. And foolish.
-
Gary,
I have read all eleven pages – so far – of this thread and have viewed your videos. If will refrain from commenting on anything other than your proposed test and what I would expect of the results other than based upon my own color managed workflow that I have embodied for over 15 years.
I believe that an image captured in the Adobe RGB (1998) workspace will outperform, in terms of color rendition and fidelity, that captured in the sRGB workspace when printed to a modern inkjet printer utilizing a good custom printer profile.
But, you know something maybe I am incorrect. So, in lieu of you photographing a color checker for your test, how about letting me provide the test prints for your audience as follows, using Bill Atkinson’s test chart that includes real world subject as well as standard color bars, color checker, gray ramps and flesh tones?
I will provide two 13” x 19” test prints that I will prepare today and will send them via overnight delivery to so as to arrive no later than Wednesday. I will do this at my own expense, because I am curious to know that, if done properly, which prints will your observers choose.
Using Bill’s test chart which is in Lab Color, I will convert one to Adobe RGB (1998) workspace in Photoshop using a Relative Colorimetric Mode and then print the image using an Epson 7900 printer for which I have made my own color profiles (iOne Profiler)
In a similar manner, I will open another copy of Bill’s test chart and convert it to sRGB workspace in Photoshop using a Relative Colorimetric Mode and then print in the same fashion.
One print will have the numeral 1 on the back, and the other a 2.
I will repeat the above test utilizing Andrew Rodney’s test chart, which is in the Adobe RGB (1998) color space. This one will be printed in the fashion listed above at 8-1/2” x 11” and I will then convert from the Adobe RGB (1998) space to sRGB and prepare another print.
In both cases, I will retain which prints were prepared utilizing the two working spaces until you conclude observations by others in order to provide for unbiased results.
Personally, I believe this will provide a better test for you to conduct as opposed to merely photographing a Color Checker that you describe.
If you are willing, please forward to me your street mailing address for FedEx delivery and I will proceed.
Regards,
Ed
-
I suggest that you call any of the commercial labs in your town, and ask if they print in sRGB vs AdobeRGB.
This is a classic example of how Gary's brain works in terms of facts and science!
Gary, I could call 100 such labs and IF they all said the same thing (these are sRGB printers), they like you would be wrong.
I could call 1000 religious fundamentalist and ask them how old the earth is and they would all say 6000 years. Despite the science that proves otherwise. They also believe man and dinosaurs lived together. It's scientifically wrong and can be proven as wrong.
The proof that none of these printers are producing sRGB is seen in the gamut maps I've provided. The output gamut shape doesn't fit sRGB, not even close. If these printers produced sRGB, there would be a prefect fit to sRGB and clearly there isn't. Doesn't matter how many lab owners you or I call, the facts are the facts. Asking 100 people who are as wrong as you what their opinion is will still produce 100 wrong answers. Just as producing your new video will not change the errors of your last two on the subject of color management.
If every printer in town tells you that they do one, or the other, or both, then will you believe the above quote? And the poster?
No. And now you know why.
-
This is a classic example of how Gary's brain works in terms of facts and science!
Gary, I could call 100 such labs and IF they all said the same thing (these are sRGB printers), they like you would be wrong.
I could call 1000 religious fundamentalist and ask them how old the earth is and they would all say 6000 years. Despite the science that proves otherwise. They also believe man and dinosaurs lived together. It's scientifically wrong and can be proven as wrong.
The proof that none of these printers are producing sRGB is seen in the gamut maps I've provided. The output gamut shape doesn't fit sRGB, not even close. If these printers produced sRGB, there would be a prefect fit to sRGB and clearly there isn't. Doesn't matter how many lab owners you or I call, the facts are the facts. Asking 100 people who are as wrong as you their opinion will still produce 100 wrong answers. Just as producing your new video will not change the errors of your last two on the subject of color management. No. And now you know why.
May I put it in this way, let's say an Eizo monitor can cover up the whole display color range of sRGB, but it doesn't cover up the whole range of AdobeRGB, can I call it a sRGB monitor? I don't think that's quite right.
I just re-watched Mr. Fong's video. He basically switched his monitor icc from between aRGB and sRGB and keep saying that one is better than the other. BUT who would use a color working space as their monitor icc? I think this is a fundamental mistake already.
aaron
-
May I put it in this way, let's say an Eizo monitor can cover up the whole display color range of sRGB, but it doesn't cover up the whole range of AdobeRGB, can I call it a sRGB monitor? I don't think that's quite right.
It's more right that what Gary is saying considering both sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) are based on an emissive display. What Gary is saying is absolutely not even close considering both (well all) RGB working space are based on additive color models and theoretical displays and Gary is saying these subtractive printers do the same. He even got basic color theory between the two wrong here.
To go further with your analogy, at least these wide gamut displays usually have an sRGB emulation mode. Do they exactly produce a profile that matches sRGB? Kind of doubt it, but probably close. Gary is confusing what color space you start with then convert to an output space as being the same thing which clearly it isn't. Then he suggests asking equally uninformed people the same question and getting the same wrong answer he provides as proof all the incorrect statements are therefore correct. If you examine nearly every point Gary has made here and on his video site disagreeing with others, there hasn't been a single fact provided based on the scientific method. Even when he references outside sources, he doesn't understand them and tries to suggest they are backing up his fallacies. So we're debating religion not science with Gary. But if anything, all these pages of comments serve as a record to anyone who wonders if Gary is providing correct information. The consensus by a huge factor is, he isn't.
At this point, we can all sit back while Gary creates yet another video worthy of mockery.
-
This is a classic example of how Gary's brain works in terms of facts and science!
Gary, I could call 100 such labs and IF they all said the same thing (these are sRGB printers), they like you would be wrong.
Andrew, that is more of an example how the world works in terms of facts and science.
If 100 labs are wrong, than it is a fact of life. Street-smart guys like Garry realize that and deal with such fact of life, right or wrong. Scientific Don Quijotes will instead launch a crusade against those 100 labs (or more likely thousands), trying to prove them wrong, mocking them, organizing press conferences, writing petitions, collecting signatures, etc. In the meantime, a street-smart guy will just send them a file with sRGB and move on with his life.
I could call 1000 religious fundamentalist and ask them how old the earth is and they would all say 6000 years. Despite the science that proves otherwise. They also believe man and dinosaurs lived together. It's scientifically wrong and can be proven as wrong...
Proven to whom? To those 1000 "religious fundamentalists" (or more like 100-200 million of them in this country)? You really believe that your scientific proofs will persuade them? If scientific facts and persuasion were so powerful, would we still have an overwhelming majority in this country and the world so religious?
-
sRGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that assumes all files coming into it are in sRGB space or assigns one to them
Adobe RGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that can honor the embedded Adobe RGB space
-
This group who will not go on record saying the answer to a simple question. Will AdobeRGB images make better prints than an image captured in sRGB
I'll say YES.
That is assuming you're photographing something with a wider gamut than sRGB in the first place.
However if you persist with the ridiculous planned methodology of shooting something that won't show any difference anyway because the subject's gamut is only slightly larger than sRGB in one very small square, you'll just get a meaningless result.
-
If 100 labs are wrong, than it is a fact of life. Street-smart guys like Garry realize that and deal with such fact of life, right or wrong. Scientific Don Quijotes will instead launch a crusade against those 100 labs (or more likely thousands), trying to prove them wrong, mocking them, organizing press conferences, writing petitions, collecting signatures, etc. In the meantime, a street-smart guy will just send them a file with sRGB and move on with his life.
IF 2 of the 100 realized their mistake and stop, that's progress. I know you'd prefer to take the side of the ignorant or the misinformed and let it slide, it's easier on you. Probably because you're not an educator. There's no hope in helping Gary. There is a possibility that some of his followers or potential followers will not drink his cool aid. And that's progress, a good thing and something I'm happy to work towards.
Proven to whom? To those 1000 "religious fundamentalists" (or more like 100-200 million of them in this country)? You really believe that your scientific proofs will persuade them? If scientific facts and persuasion were so powerful, would we still have an overwhelming majority in this country and the world so religious?
You've missed the point again. First, this isn't subjective, it is fact based. It isn't about trying to convince liberals to become conservative or vise versa to affect a vote. It is about having people understand the scientific method and use it instead of being fooled and believing in nonsense. If we all behaved as you proposed, I have to wonder where mankind would be today in terms of it's understanding of so many subjects.
There are people like Gary who will never change their small minds to the facts and I can't do anything about them. They deserve to live in ignorance and maybe some bliss. There are lots of others who do want to know the facts of the situation and have just stumbled on a site like Gary's, not knowing the guy is polluting their brains with nonsense. With an open mind, some curiosity and a bit of work, they might make it over here and get the correct information. That's good for them, it's good for us all. Unlike you, I'm not going to give up on anyone who wants to learn.
As to why you think it is preferable to allow the less informed to stay less informed or worse, have their ideas polluted by a guy like Gary, I'm at a loss.
-
If a photographer, using their new DSLR or Mirrorless camera, takes photos of the eiffel tower and wants to display them on the web, or make 5x7 prints, and that's as far as they are going to venture with their image use, should they use sRGB or AdobeRGB? Is anybody here going to answer AdobeRGB?
If this person shoots in AdobeRGB and makes prints in AdobeRGB, will they look visibly better than an image taken all in sRGB space?
I'm running the tests and publishing them. And Andrew Rodney says, if there are thousands of labs printing in sRGB, they're all wrong but Andrew is right. And Will Crockett is wrong. And Ken Rockwell is wrong. Yet he cannot and will not say that an image shot in AdobeRGB and printed on AdobeRGB equipment will look visibly superior to the sRGB print.
You can send your color balls that were carefully managed to me (private me for the address) but is this straight from the camera? I've said countless times - the video is to answer the question of why photographers complain of dull color prints as soon as they switch the color space from sRGB to AdobeRGB in the camera. The illustrations I used in the video and the terms, "Muffin top", "Wide Rainbow" are meant for the person new to photography to understand.
Look at the pages and pages and pages of words that Andrew Rodney writes. Does the consumer want to go through all of that technical training - to produce prints that even this forum admits that there is very little difference in output
That is the point of my video, and the upcoming video. It is to show that while AdobeRGB is a wider space, in practice the benefits from working such a workflow gives minimal benefit if any.
Not one of you, not a single one, can say that AdobeRGB will make visibly better prints when taken straight from a camera file. Not a single one of you can say it, that's why you say that my test will already be "rigged" or "flawed".
I understand that Mr. Rodney will maintain that he's right and the rest of the world is wrong, til the end of his days. He is not even a professional photographer. Therefore, in practical terms for the practical photographer, all of this extra fuss is not worth the time invested in the training or even the output.
-
sRGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that assumes all files coming into it are in sRGB space or assignees one to them
Adobe RGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that can honor the embedded Adobe RGB space
No, that's NOT an sRGB or Adobe RGB printer. By the time the data gets anywhere near the printer, it's not either. Saying that it is, suggesting Gary (or you) are correct in this kind of language only illustrates lazy and ill defined understanding of the process.
Further, you can send those printers an output color space that was produced from ANY RGB working space. You might have to futz with a different front end that assumes incorrectly, sRGB, what Gary should have illustrated in his video.
-
If this person shoots in AdobeRGB and makes prints in AdobeRGB, will they look visibly better than an image taken all in sRGB space?
Seriously, WHAT THE HECK IS AdobeRGB prints?
-
I'll say YES.
That is assuming you're photographing something with a wider gamut than sRGB in the first place...
I would not be so sure about that Yes. I would say it is more likely to be a statistical tie. Here is why: those colors that are outside of sRGB will be printed more correctly from an Adobe RGB file, but will they be more pleasing? All that test participants would notice is that the colors are different. Whether they are better, more pleasing, etc. is rather subjective, and more likely than not the test would end up in a 50/50 split. Some people would like more saturated colors of Adobe RGB, some will not. In the sRGB print, colors outside of gamut will be clipped, but they won't disappear, leaving white spots on paper. They will be replaced by the nearest printable color. And the replacement might look even better to some viewers.
-
I'm running the tests and publishing them. And Andrew Rodney says, if there are thousands of labs printing in sRGB, they're all wrong but Andrew is right. And Will Crockett is wrong. And Ken Rockwell is wrong. Yet he cannot and will not say that an image shot in AdobeRGB and printed on AdobeRGB equipment will look visibly superior to the sRGB print.
One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, if you, or Ken, or Will say these are sRGB printers, you're all wrong. The gamut maps you continue to ignore prove that.
Look at the pages and pages and pages of words that Andrew Rodney writes. Does the consumer want to go through all of that technical training - to produce prints that even this forum admits that there is very little difference in output
Do they want incorrect information like you've provided? I suspect not. The pages are simply more ammo to prove you haven't a clue about this subject.
I understand that Mr. Rodney will maintain that he's right and the rest of the world is wrong, til the end of his days.
Classic Gary. Not the rest of the world, mostly you. That you can't separate those two facts is further proof you should be totally dismissed.
-
Seriously, WHAT THE HECK IS AdobeRGB prints?
Prints that come from an "Adobe RGB printer" as defined above: Adobe RGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that can honor the embedded Adobe RGB space
-
sRGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that assumes all files coming into it are in sRGB space or assigns one to them
Adobe RGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that can honor the embedded Adobe RGB space
No change in lighting, camera, color setting, exposure, no post production, no embedding of profiles.
Seems to be yet another disconnect here, no?
-
I would not be so sure about that Yes. I would say it is more likely to be a statistical tie.
Since the testing parameters are wrong, at least as Gary defines them, it's ridiculous to even continue down this path which is just his idea of misdirection.
Look at the origin of this post and all the pages that have gone by. It is to discredit two video's that are fundamentally wrong about color.
Debating which color space is better can't be done without a firm understanding of the topic and without ridged rules as to how the test is conducted. None of this has happened. As such it's pointless to assume anything.
If you start with raw, if you shoot a scene that's gamut falls easily outside Adobe RGB (which you Slobodan asked about and where given a video to see how this is possible), with the right printer and properly handling, there WILL be a difference between using the two color spaces! Now comes subjectivity, which is 'better'? If half say one, half the other, so what? Further, as has been missed by you and Gary, how does this in any way change the misinformation on Gary's two previous videos? It doesn't. This print test is just misdirection from Gary, I'm surprised we are even biting at it. At first some of us actually did think Gary might want to make a new video based on sound color management practices using sound testing methods. Once he came up with the Color Checker idea and was told it wouldn’t fly due to it's gamut, but dismissed that key point, the discussion of a new video became pointless. Whatever he does will prove nothing other than he still doesn't understand nor can teach color management. That's the bottom line.
-
Seems to be yet another disconnect here, no?
Mark, what I think is going on is the following: when Garry said "no embedding" he probably meant no specific, in-software, deliberate attempt by the photographer to embed a profile. However, in his experiment, he is going to shoot twice, once with his camera set to sRGB and then set to Adobe RGB, and then send those files, straight out of camera, with no postprocessing, directly to a lab.
-
Prints that come from an "Adobe RGB printer" as defined above: Adobe RGB printer = a lab that uses a printer that can honor the embedded Adobe RGB space
No, wrong, don't even try to suggest that's the case, it isn't. Again, by the time the data gets to the printer, it isn't any RGB working space. Again, the gamut maps which are measured from what the printers produce prove it. There is no such thing as an sRGB printer. Read the text by Stokes about what sRGB is. Don't fall into the trap Gary is leading you into, unless you wish to sound as incorrect about this topic as he is. Unless you want to call them sRGB/AdobeRGB/ProPhotoRGB/ColorMatchRGB/AppleRGB/BruceRGB?ECI/RGB_andallotherRGB_WorkingSpace printers. Dumb right?
So no matter what the printer's substrate, calibration, output behavior, it's an sRGB printer? Really Slobodan? Come on, I know you're a lot smarter about this topic than you let on by even trying to agree with Gary on this. Don't shot yourself in the foot with him.
-
Mark, what I think is going on is the following: when Garry said "no embedding" he probably meant no specific, in-software, deliberate attempt by the photographer to embed a profile. However, in his experiment, he is going to shoot twice, once with his camera set to sRGB and then set to Adobe RGB, and then send those files, straight out of camera, with no postprocessing, directly to a lab.
Don't ignore what he said he's shooting that would completely invalidate the test.
-
Don't ignore what he said he's shooting that would completely invalidate the test.
Yes, that really is the pièce de résistance of this whole enterprise. It's like trying to decide what the public likes best: prints from black and white files or prints from color. To decide we're going to shoot a photo of this grey card and have it printed…
-
Will AdobeRGB images make better prints than an image captured in sRGB
Based on the information concerning the testing protocol and procedure, I will make a prediction: quite possibly maybe.
-
It's like trying to decide what the public likes best: prints from black and white files or prints from color. To decide we're going to shoot a photo of this grey card and have it printed…
Touché! ;D
-
Don't ignore what he said he's shooting that would completely invalidate the test.
I didn't do the test myself, so I do not know, but wouldn't the prints that were shot with AdobeRGB, yet printed as if sRGB look washed out overall, across all/most colors in the color checker?
-
I understand that Mr. Rodney will maintain that he's right and the rest of the world is wrong, til the end of his days. He is not even a professional photographer.
Again another example for those coming here to understand Gary's misunderstanding of the subject, how his mind works or rather, lack thereof.
If you're not a professional photographer, then your disagreements are not valid, even when they are correct and based on sound color science. If I told Gary I was a color scientist (which I'm not), then that data point would be invalid because I'm not a professional photographer. What a dopey concept he has.
Next, he says I'm maintaining I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong. That's wrong of course. I'm stating he is wrong. He has a huge propensity to ignore facts. So the facts I'll provide will go over his head but hopefully not those who will come here to read about Mr. Fong's concepts. If we look at his initial video site and the comments, the overwhelming majority of posts state his concepts of color are wrong. There isn't a single person who's as yet posted, agreeing that Gary's ideas of color are correct. Not one. Now lets look at the facts here. 230 odd posts, not a single one I can find, other than from Gary that agrees with his points. In fact, just the opposite! So the whole world is wrong? No, Gary is wrong.
In Gary's mind my comments about his video are wrong because I'm no longer making a living shooting and because the overwhelming majority of people agree with me that his video is wrong. Talk about twisted logic. Can this guy dig himself any deeper in a hole? Well yes he can. And he will. And it will be quite enjoyable to see other's from over the web come and read his rants.
-
I didn't do the test myself, so I do not know, but wouldn't the prints that were shot with AdobeRGB, yet printed as if sRGB look washed out overall, across all/most colors in the color checker?
IF Gary wanted to even consider doing the tests correctly, he'd capture raw. He refused to do that. The target he proposes to use is wrong. He'll probably handle the data wrong. I don't know why we continue to even guess what he'll get wrong until we see his video which I'm sure will be laughable.
He got his first two color management video's so wrong and that was before we even had an idea what he'd discuss. We have some idea of what he'll do in the new video. So until we see it, discussing it only plays into his misdirection efforts to keep us from slamming the misinformation in his first two videos.
As I and other's have said, if someone wanted to setup a testing process to evaluate the differences on a print using sRGB vs. Adobe RGB as working spaces to convert to an output space, Gary has constructed a test with as many incorrect parameters as possible.
-
IF Gary wanted to even consider doing the tests correctly, he'd capture raw...
His audience does not shoot raw, so he is doing the test that mimics a real-world scenario for his audience. And you did not answer my question, btw.
-
I still haven't heard anybody going on record saying that the AdobeRGB is going to win. Just a bunch of snipes off topic.
Well, shooting a target that is not out of gamut for sRGB (except cyan) is a useless test...however, if you did real life shooting of natural life subjects that are out of gamut in both sRGB and Adobe RGB, then you would have an interesting test that would prove that ARGB can contain more color than sRGB and the prints would prove that. (I know, I've done this).
So, all you are really doing is waisting your time...but hey, it's yours to waist.
-
His audience does not shoot raw, so he is doing the test that mimics a real-world scenario for his audience. And you did not answer my question, btw.
Doesn't matter! His audience only needs to see two properly handled images in two color spaces. The capture mode doesn't have to even enter the discussion!
The reason to shot raw is many! First, with one capture it would be far easier to inspect the individual pixels in perfect registration for further analysis, something Gary clearly couldn’t do both others could. Next, the conversion from native raw which as I hope you know is going to happen anyway, to sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) could be a factor from each camera maker. If you remove the proprietary in-camera process, which we don't know about, this becomes camera agnostic (it does become raw converter specific). Less variables. If we start with raw, we can use other working space too, which would be useful.
What question didn't I answer?
-
... What question didn't I answer?
"...wouldn't the prints that were shot with AdobeRGB, yet printed as if sRGB look washed out overall, across all/most colors in the color checker?"
-
"...wouldn't the prints that were shot with AdobeRGB, yet printed as if sRGB look washed out overall, across all/most colors in the color checker?"
Sure - most mini lab controllers are not ICC aware, they simply make device link sRGB to paper emulsion RGB colour conversions. Assign (or soft proof with "preserve RGB numbers") c-print profile to an sRGB and Adobe RGB content and you'll see the potential effect simulation.
-
"...wouldn't the prints that were shot with AdobeRGB, yet printed as if sRGB look washed out overall, across all/most colors in the color checker?"
There are so many ways Gary can sabotage or handle the data incorrectly, anything is possible. And again, you don't print as sRGB. You could assign sRGB to Adobe RGB (1998) data which would be an incredulity dumb thing to do and yes, the data then converted to the output space would be wrong.
Just go into Photoshop and Assign the wrong profile to any document and see the results. The numbers don't change, the meaning does. Leave the incorrect meaning and then convert to the output color space, the output would be wrong. Again, you'd have to go out of your way to do this and it's an incorrect way to handle the data. If you had a document sized for a particular output size and resolution, then resized down using the wrong algorithm 500% and printed it, it would look pretty ratty too. Don't handle the data incorrectly! And if you do, don't blame it on a color space or a resize algorithm! It's your own fault.
-
Sure - most mini lab controllers are not ICC aware, they simply make device link sRGB to paper emulsion RGB colour conversions...
Than Garry's test is not totally pointless. It will show, to his audience, what happens when they set their camera to Adobe RGB and then send the file directly out of camera to a print lab.
-
Than Garry's test is not totally pointless. It will show, to his audience, what happens when they set their camera to Adobe RGB and then send the file directly out of camera to a print lab.
Yes it is totally pointless (and why you'd think otherwise is kind of surprising). All one has to do is open the file in Photoshop and Assign the wrong profile to show this. And no, many labs will get it right when sending Adobe RGB to the lab. Or just show the audience how to convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB. Better to show them the correct way to handle the data than the wrong way.
-
Than Garry's test is not totally pointless. It will show, to his audience, what happens when they set their camera to Adobe RGB and then send the file directly out of camera to a print lab.
Gary has already shown that in the stupid video!!!!! No print test is necessary!
Who here is even debating that if you send an image in AdobeRGB to a print lab that will assume sRGB, that the results will be dull and crappy????
I'm certainly not.
The problem is that the video gives the viewer the impression that this "dullness" is due to some crazy "muffin-top"/jamming/squeeze theory that will happen any time you go from a large-gamut image to a small-gamut device.
-
The problem is that the video gives the viewer the impression that this "dullness" is due to some crazy "muffin-top"/jamming/squeeze theory that will happen any time you go from a large-gamut image to a small-gamut device.
Exactly. That again is the root and crux of this discussion.
As to why Slobodan is going down Gary's rabbit hole with the video is surprising however.
-
...And no, many labs will get it right when sending Adobe RGB to the lab...
A suggestion to Gary then: send the test prints to, say, ten most popular labs (e.g., Costco, Target, Walgreens, etc. and include some like Shutterfly, Mpix, etc, in the mix) and see how many of them will get it right.
-
A suggestion to Garry then: send the test prints to, say, ten most popular labs (e.g., Costco, Target, Walgreens, etc. and include some like Shutterfly, Mpix, etc, in the mix) and see how many of them will get it right.
Gary isn't interested in that, nor any other suggestions (rational or otherwise) made here about the video. He's got a predetermined result he expects and wants to present. The paper trail leading up to suggestions he dismissed can be found below.
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2014, 12:51:15 AM »
He gave me quite the education of Andrew Rodney, and we will be doing a Skype video to clear up the confusion stirred up by Mr. Rodney (and others) for a YouTube video.
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2014, 07:52:22 AM »
I will be making a series of videos that we plan to roll out to especially educate on this topic. I'll be doing Skype interviews for my YouTube channel about where all of the confusion is coming from, and I'll be making sample prints in both sRGB and AdobeRGB workflows, and we will put them on display on the sidewalk outside my office, and let people vote which is better.
What do you think will be the result of my public opinion test when I show passersby unmarked prints of images taken both in contained sRGB or aRGB workflows? I'll put up a tally of who voted for which. Do you think the result will be enormously in favor of the AdobeRGB workflow print, or the sRGB workflow print?
« Reply #92 on: August 24, 2014, 12:44:45 PM »
Tell me in advance what is bad about the workflow I'm going to use, so I can consider it for the video.
I'm not sure why you don't see this is just more misdirection from the errors he's presented already, or think he'll take your suggestions any more to heart than those already presented, unless he feels you are siding with him. It's pretty unanimously accepted here that his message had merit, the way it was presented was hugely flawed. You think the next video will be any different based on what Gary has admitted to us already?
-
This is just kind of a side-topic since I think this is just a viral-marketing gimmick where Gary is concerned.
When my Canon 5D2 is set to AdobeRGB and is doing in-camera Jpegs, the AdobeRGB profile is not embedded into the image. Only an Exif flag is set. I wonder how many printing systems and browsers that normally DO read and interpret correctly embedded ICC profiles would actually ignore AdobeRGB if it was flagged only within the EXIF.
Just curious - you know, among us color nerds and measurebaters.
-
Just to answer part of my own question. I just did a quick test on an in-camera Jpeg with AdobeRGB (Canon 5d2). Results:
- Firefox with color management fully enabled does NOT correctly convert the color space. It shows up with the trademark Gary Fong Dullness.
- Photoshop DOES detect and properly convert for AdobeRGB.
The results are what I was expecting. I would have been very surprised if Firefox would do the conversion correctly since I am pretty sure that its color management depends on an embedded profile. Lacking that, it will assume sRGB (or not convert at all, depending on the FF color management mode).
-
- Photoshop DOES detect and properly convert for AdobeRGB.
For fun, if you go into the Photoshop preferences and File Handling, I assume you have "Ignore EXIF Profile Tag" checkbox OFF.
-
For fun, if you go into the Photoshop preferences and File Handling, I assume you have "Ignore EXIF Profile Tag" checkbox OFF.
That is correct, fellow color nerd. :D
Amazing what you can learn when you concentrate on facts and evidence instead of fantasy, isn't it?
Any speculation on how many printing systems out there would properly convert images with embedded profiles but would not when only the Exif flag* was set?
* my Canon manual refers to this as "Design rule for Camera File System 2.0 (Exif 2.21), by the way.
-
- Firefox with color management fully enabled does NOT correctly convert the color space. It shows up with the trademark Gary Fong Dullness.
I just used Photoshop's Save for Web, told it not to embed profile. Safari seems to be working fine. When I try opening it in Photoshop, I get the dreaded Missing Profile dialog.
But this really very simple. If you know you need to upload to the web or send data to a lab that demands sRGB, just send them sRGB which can easily be done in Photoshop, Elements, Lightroom and a slew of other applications that understand color. You get the best of both worlds; wider gamut Adobe RGB (1998) and an iteration, presumably sized and prep'ed for output in sRGB. To send Adobe RGB (1998) out to anyone or anywhere that assumes sRGB (or for that matter vise versa) is user error. Teach user not to make the error, simple.
-
A suggestion to Garry then: send the test prints to, say, ten most popular labs (e.g., Costco, Target, Walgreens, etc. and include some like Shutterfly, Mpix, etc, in the mix) and see how many of them will get it right.
I think this would be a more reasonable test.
The thing is there is only one true concept, the basic fundamental logic, of color management and that should be it.
But to see "IF" the general public service providers are using it as their way to manage their workflow, that's another story.
"IF" they do, that's great for all of us. "IF" they don't, doesn't mean "THEY ARE DOING IT IN A CORRECT WAY". By all means that they are all doing wrong but the general public has to accepted it in a sad way.
-
Any speculation on how many printing systems out there would properly convert images with embedded profiles but would not when only the Exif flag* was set?
Don't know, but a poster here says none:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/835020
And again, while that would be nice, just convert to sRGB if you know the color space has to be sRGB (I know, that's obvious and directed at Gary or his newer users).
-
Hold on, this is interesting:
http://www.cipa.jp/exifprint/contents_e/01exif2_2_e.html
In addition to the sRGB color space used in DCF Ver. 1.0 standard, the newly-established DCF Ver. 2.0 (established September 2003) allows the use of Adobe RGB, a standard used in commercial sectors such as the printing and publishing industry. DCF Ver. 2.0 defines Adobe RGB as an optional color space. In order to differentiate JPEG files recorded using this color space from those recorded using conventional sRGB, new rules for operation have been incorporated, such as adding an underline in front of the file name. This enables Exif information to indicate that a JPEG image was recorded in Adobe RGB color space when recorded in Adobe RGB mode. Clearly differentiating Adobe RGB from sRGB allows correct reproduction of the color space used to capture the image.
http://www.cipa.jp/exifprint/contents_e/01exif3_1_e.html
Exif Print is the promotion name given to Exif 2.2, which is a new standard for improved coordination between digital cameras and printers. It allows images to be printed easily and beautifully.
http://www.cipa.jp/exifprint/contents_e/02support4_e.html
http://www.cipa.jp/exifprint/contents_e/02support5_e.html
-
Hold on, this is interesting:
<snip>In order to differentiate JPEG files recorded using this color space from those recorded using conventional sRGB, new rules for operation have been incorporated, such as adding an underline in front of the file name. <snip>
So that's where that underscore comes from! Now why does it appear in Nikon raw file names?
Jim
-
So that's where that underscore comes from! Now why does it appear in Nikon raw file names?
Embedded JPEG preview in the raw?
More interesting stuff:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000146.shtml
Exif 2.2, also termed Exif Print, introduced tags to record camera settings, including scene type (portrait, landscape, night scene, etc.), that can be used to guide automatic adjustments before printing in order to best match the photographer's intent. The key difference between Exif 2.21 and Exif 2.2 is support for the Adobe RGB color space without embedding a color profile. In version Exif 2.2, the default color space is sRGB.
-
Embedded JPEG preview in the raw?
Good thinking. That's probably it. Axe to kill fly, though.
Jim
-
In the sRGB print, colors outside of gamut will be clipped, but they won't disappear, leaving white spots on paper.
White spots on paper ? No. Colours that are clipped just end up as saturated as the destination allows, they don't get changed to white in any system I've seen.
-
If a photographer, using their new DSLR or Mirrorless camera, takes photos of the eiffel tower and wants to display them on the web, or make 5x7 prints, and that's as far as they are going to venture with their image use, should they use sRGB or AdobeRGB?
I've read all 13 (and counting) pages of this discussion and have been fascinated. I'm hesitant to jump in as I am not knowledgeable about colour management, however I am a photography instructor and workshop leader and deal with dispelling internet myths on a regular basis.
Gary - Your instructions to your public regarding setting the camera to sRGB will give people more pleasing results right away. Your error is in explaining it with misinformation and not providing them with enough info to make an informed decision. You bashed aRGB as if you have a vendetta against it.
What dismays me most is the way you close the door to the value of using AdobeRGB. It's similar to telling your public: "Just shoot at a low resolution because you'll never use high resolution for the web and album prints anyway". While it may be expedient for the vast number of your followers at that particular point in time, it sets them up for having less than ideal results once they catch on to photography and wish to take it further.
Years ago, I blindly followed similar advice when I lived in Africa and was new to digital photography. Shooting at lower resolution meant I could get more pictures on my memory card. In your case, you suggest shooting in sRGB so that colours will look better right away. But once I knew more about what I was doing and went back to re-visit those images, I was upset that I had followed such narrow-minded, expediency-driven advice. A local chain of camera stores here in southern Ontario still gives the same, unfortunate advice.
Once I started teaching digital photography, I made a vow to myself to never do this to my students. Never assume they don't want to know more, to explore more and to learn more. I take the same 5 minutes and help them to understand better what the advantages and disadvantages are of both. I give them options and let them choose. I don't treat them like robots - they are thinking human beings who appreciate some background.
They have the ability to understand better than you think, especially when you show them a proper XY or XYZ colour space and superimpose one on the other. They can see the advantage of aRGB even if they may not yet be in a position to use it to their advantage. They can then make a properly informed decision. In fact, borrowing just two or three slides from Andrew's presentation (with appropriate credit) would go miles towards everyone having a better understanding of why using aRGB may be a better option if you want to more from your photography than shooting glorified Polaroids.
I like to use the analogy of a tennis court or basketball court. If the cement walls of the gym are built to the exact size of the court, then you are less likely to play as hard and fast, since you would bash up against the cement walls all the time. This is an sRGB colour space, one that is wrongly used for printing when the person operating it is ignorant of colour spaces and profiling. If you shoot in sRGB, you can't play (edit) as hard as you can compared to, for example, an aRGB colour space (or, better yet, ProPhotoRGB) where the cement walls of the gym are beyond the dimensions of the court, thereby giving you room to play the game as it was meant to be played. My students find this analogy to be very helpful in understanding WHY sRGB may be limiting them.
You see, once your audience starts to realize they can do more with their photographs then simply point-shoot & print (or post), once they realize how they can improve their images with just a bit of editing on a computer they already have, they won't thank you for limiting them by evangelizing the sRGB colour space.
Many of us here the LuLa forum are "that type" who want to do more with their photos than shoot and print/post, so we take issue with well-known instructors like yourself, who make broad proclamations backed by misinformation. Stop turning aRGB into the boogeyman man it isn't.
Gary, your print test will do nothing but further entrench the sRGB mindset. Instead, spend your time, effort and money really helping your audience understand the options they have and the trade-offs they may be making. This is the mark of a good instructor
-
Another reason to capture the test in raw, and another reason why the image content is so critical to the test has to do with how dark saturated colors are affected when printed (again, the output device, gamut, profiles, RI play a role).
One reason we need big RGB working spaces is that they are based on theoretical emissive devices (ProPhoto being very theoretical when you look at what falls outside human vision). RGB working space matrix profiles when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation chroma at high luminance levels which makes sense since they are based on increased saturation Chroma by the addition of more light. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces where this is accomplished by adding ink: a subtractive color model. One reason we need such big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB is due to its simple size and to counter the disconnect between mapping to the output space without potentially clipping colors. There can be issues where very dark colors of intense saturation Chroma (which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices) don’t map properly with a smaller working space. Many of these darker colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998). When you encode using a smaller color space, 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. I suspect this is why Adobe picked ProPhoto RGB primaries for the processing color space in their raw converters.
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 different 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.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif)
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif
There are two plots, one zoomed out to show the entire color space and one zoomed in making it easier to see the clumping of red dots.
Both plots have exactly the same number of colors and thus dots but the gamut is of course different and the grouping of the dots.
The file is about 2.5mb and JPEG just wasn't clear enough to illustrate this so be warned if you have slow bandwidth.
The original RGB working space indicated above WERE converted to an Epson 3880 profile for luster paper. So you ARE seeing the effect of the working space on the output color space.
-
RGB working space matrix profiles when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels which makes sense since they are based on increased saturation by the addition of more light. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces where this is accomplished by adding ink: a subtractive color model. One reason we need such big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB is due to its simple size and to counter the disconnect between mapping to the output space without potentially clipping colors. There can be issues where very dark colors of intense saturation (which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices) don’t map properly with a smaller working space. Many of these darker colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998).
Andrew, I know I'm being pedantic and nerdy here, but I think you want to replace the word "saturation" with "chroma" in the above. There is no measure of saturation in CIELab, but CIELuv has one, and surface colors retain their saturation as illuminant brightness is increased provided the relative spectrum is unchanged, as do emissive displays as brightness of the primaries is scaled linearly.
Jim
-
Andrew, I know I'm being pedantic and nerdy here, but I think you want to replace the word "saturation" with "chroma" in the above.
I think you're right although I'm wasn't initially sure if Colorfulness would be better or not in this context. Looking through Fairchild now.
Colorfulness: Attribute of a visual sensation according to which the preceved color of an area appears more or less chromatic.
Chroma: Colorfulness of an area judged as proportion of the brightness of similarly illuminated area that appears white or highly transmitting.
Hum.... I think you're right, Chroma it is, thanks!
-
White spots on paper ? No. Colours that are clipped just end up as saturated as the destination allows, they don't get changed to white in any system I've seen.
Jesus, talking about reading comprehension and truncated quoting ... I specifically said:
... colors outside of gamut will be clipped, but they won't disappear, leaving white spots on paper. They will be replaced by the nearest printable color.
In other words "they won't be leaving white spots."
-
In other words "they won't be leaving white spots."
That sure would have been a nasty effect of the rendering intent <g>.
You also said: And the replacement might look even better to some viewers.
I suppose that is indeed possible but I also wonder if it would, depending on the profile and many other factors produce, color shifts. The blue to magenta issue comes to mind. Another reason why the Macbeth is a terrible item to use solely and why some very saturated blues would be necessary.
You think Gary even knows about the different rendering intents and will make a print using RelCol as well as Perceptual?
-
Okay so today garyfong is still all like
- I shoot 2 pictures of a color checker with my favorite camera set to sRGB then Adobe RGB
- I show those two images printed to random people
- Out of the blue, they tell me which one they like best.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
What does that even mean?
How do these fellas evaluate anything and.. oh boy.
No, sorry.. staying serious... oh wait ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :P :P :P ;D ;D :D :D
Can't stay serious.
How random people could know what is best from random photos of a color checker target is just beyond me.
But it sure has a comedy effect, thanks again for that :D
-
Of course, if test results are inconclusive, sRGB is declared winner.
Because: reasons.
As garyfong said, Adobe RGB is expected to "blow sRGB away" instead.
We shall all agree right now on the fact that in no case inconclusive results could be caused by the fact this absurd test doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
-
I'd like to get back to something Slobodon said early on in this thread, which was roughly that Gary's message re keeping it simple for people working jpeg and on screen that sticking w/ sRGB makes sense. And so far none of our resident experts have done anything other than affirm this.
Gary's seeming problem is with defending a "simplified" explanation of why this might be so with completely wrong headed grossly oversimplified and "just plain wrong" illustrations.
It would seem that the issue could be settled with an apt quotation:
Einstein: “Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler."
Thank you Albert. Are you listening Gary?
As for my personal feelings about properlly processed images, working in large color spaces with a color managed workflow, and printed on printers and paper that have wide gamut capatilities.... well my analogy would go something like this.
sRGB = Thomas Kinkade
Wide gamut = Monet
There are lots of folk out there who prefer Kinkade, I suspect. What does that prove?
-
... How random people could know what is best from random photos of a color checker target is just beyond me...
Because their role is not to "know what is best" but to simply say what they prefer or like the most.
It is like expecting voters to "know" which presidential candidate is "best." Some do know, but even they know only what would be best for them or their social group. Most others go for what they like. As much as there are initiatives to let only highly educated voters to vote, that ain't gonna happen. By the same token, what people like or not about their prints is not going to be determined by a bunch of experts.
-
Because their role is not to "know what is best" but to simply say what they prefer or like the most.
Please explain how you like the most one or another printed picture representing a colorchecker target.
And what it's supposed to mean.
-
Please explain how you like the most one or another printed picture representing a colorchecker target.
And what it's supposed to mean.
I was just going to ask the same question. I mean, what's to like about a ColorChecker card?
Brian A
-
When my Canon 5D2 is set to AdobeRGB and is doing in-camera Jpegs, the AdobeRGB profile is not embedded into the image. Only an Exif flag is set. I wonder how many printing systems and browsers that normally DO read and interpret correctly embedded ICC profiles would actually ignore AdobeRGB if it was flagged only within the EXIF.
Just curious - you know, among us color nerds and measurebaters.
As one still trying to increase my knowledge of color management, may I insert a slightly off topic question here:
The quoted post by Eyeball, and a few others which follow it suggest that there is a distinction between a color profile embedded within the image and a color profile specified simply by an Exif flag. Can someone clarify this for me. Where, within the image file, does one find the embedded profile (data) if not within the Exif data? Does an embedded ICC profile remain intact if the Exif data is stripped from the file?
My understanding (likely flawed) is that Exif data includes ALL metadata in the image file other than the bytes representing the image itself.
-
Please explain how you like the most one or another printed picture representing a colorchecker target.
You are correct. I made a wrong assumption that Gary will be using the color checker as a part of scene containing a range of colors, from natural to man-made objects.
I agree it does not make much sense to like or not a color checker card, if the goal was to compare two color spaces. If the goal was to show that wrongly printed Adobe RGB looks washed out, than I think the general public will prefer the non-washedout version. Which, of course, is a no brainer.
-
I'd like to get back to something Slobodon said early on in this thread, which was roughly that Gary's message re keeping it simple for people working jpeg and on screen that sticking w/ sRGB makes sense. And so far none of our resident experts have done anything other than affirm this.
I don't have nearly the same stature as others here, but I have not affirmed that, not fully anyway. :) As I stated somewhere above, I believe a better piece of advice for some beginners shooting JPEG may very well be to shoot Adobe RGB and work with somebody who knows what they're doing if they need to print or do something else downstream.
That's for the reason luxborealis also just stated above -- shooting JPEG's in sRGB, the narrow range of colour you get in those files is forever. If real-world colour was lost and you later progress to the point where you care more and want to use a print process (for example) that renders fuller colour from the scenes you shot, you can't do it. As everyone who works in a colour managed workflow knows, print labs that are cited as being able to "only print sRGB" in fact can render more colour than sRGB in certain hue ranges (e.g. yellow and blue-green), and have been able to do so for quite some time. Inkjets in turn can render more colour than even Adobe RGB (let alone sRGB) in certain hue ranges, and have been able to do so for some time. (At least Gary Fong, right at the beginning of the video, very briefly acknowledged that people doing pre-press or inkjet printing might have reason to use Adobe RGB, but then he spends the rest of the video essentially trashing that choice so it doesn't look like a good one. I doubt very many folks doing pre-press work are in Gary Fong's target audience, but many inkjet printers might be.)
Slobodan didn't really buy my rationale, and that's fine; I didn't really want to debate with him over it. Because at the end of the day it's not about who of us is right, it's about what is right... for a given photographer. I don't much care what choice anybody makes, as long as it's a good one for them. I do care a lot more if a load of hooey is delivered by an "expert", and misleads people into making bad choices. If a person is okay with limited colour now and forever, by all means shoot JPEG's in sRGB. If a person wants more colour now, advice to shoot sRGB now is not fine. And if a person is okay with less colour now but may want more later from the same files, it's also not fine.
Gary's seeming problem is with defending a "simplified" explanation of why this might be so with completely wrong headed grossly oversimplified and "just plain wrong" illustrations.
Well, that's not his only problem, in my opinion. His advice has twin problems. First, it's a simplistic recommendation for people without any real regard to where they're at, what they're doing, and how or when they may want to do more than they're doing today. In other words not really qualifying the audience to say "this simplified recommendation applies to you guys, but not to you other guys, and here's why." And second, he's providing bad information based on flawed premises, that leads not just to simplified understanding but in fact wrong understanding that creates bad decision making both now and later.
Those potentially bad decisions made now will continue to affect all images shot based on them, even if a person later decides to up the game with their workflow. Some photographers will be okay with this, saying "oh well, live & learn, I'll just have to shoot some more". Some photographers will be less thrilled that expert advice guided them to make choices that permanently restricted image colour, throwing away something that was there for them on the table if only they had known the true implications of what they were doing. How many people might be in the latter group? Who knows... but why create that group at all, when a barely more involved up-front explanation could eliminate the misleading confusion.
It would seem that the issue could be settled with an apt quotation:
Einstein: “Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler."
Thank you Albert.
I agree with the reference to Einstein, completely. :) That's the issue with simplistic advice, provided free of context as one-size-fits-all solutions, bolstered by bogus examples. Such advice is almost guaranteed to be simpler than it should be for somebody... and the very people who are seeking out and following such advice are the ones who -- at that moment -- are least able to discern whether it's really the best advice for them or not. Or is even valid at all. It seems to me obligatory for an expert instructor to not only give people folksy, accessible and fun commentary, but in fact to create (at least for the subset of the audience who care) the capability to make informed, good decisions that apply to their own circumstances.
-
You are correct. I made a wrong assumption that Gary will be using the color checker as a part of scene containing a range of colors, from natural to man-made objects.
I agree it does not make much sense to like or not a color checker card, if the goal was to compare two color spaces. If the goal was to show that wrongly printed Adobe RGB looks washed out, than I think the general public will prefer the non-washedout version. Which, of course, is a no brainer.
I made a similar assumption initially, thinking Gary would ask people to compare prints with the physical color checker in their hands.
This is where a calibrated camera was required as well.
But apparently it's not what his test is either.
At this point, Gary uses us to make his point "it's a hot debate" and we used him to show: "here's a complete example of how to approach color management wrong, from A to Z"
He might gain mechanically some publicity for his premium channel, and we get entertained while experimenting new ways to explain color science 8)
-
You are correct. I made a wrong assumption that Gary will be using the color checker as a part of scene containing a range of colors, from natural to man-made objects.
Nope, despite suggestions otherwise, he's saying that's all he'll use. Might as well just use a gray or white card! Considering that expect for one patch, the target he uses falls within sRGB, do you now see how some are suggesting he's got an agenda and is producing a test with predetermined results to backup his flat earth color management theories? Not that such a video has any bearing on his previous video's in terms of mistakes and misinformation!
Here's exactly what he wrote:
It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other.
Why the color checker? Because it will show the difference between squares. If I did a portrait, it would be subjective.
Pretty ridiculous I'd hope you would agree.
-
Where, within the image file, does one find the embedded profile (data) if not within the Exif data? Does an embedded ICC profile remain intact if the Exif data is stripped from the file?
Yes, the ICC profile will remain even if all the EXIF data is stripped. I am not qualified to tell you where in the file either reside however.
-
[...] Can someone clarify this for me. Where, within the image file, does one find the embedded profile (data) if not within the Exif data? Does an embedded ICC profile remain intact if the Exif data is stripped from the file?
My understanding (likely flawed) is that Exif data includes ALL metadata in the image file other than the bytes representing the image itself.
No, EXIF is a single metadata standard (in fact one no longer under active maintenance or development, as far as I know). It covers only part of the metadata you could find within any given file. There are other metadata standards that cover other things, and they are not stored within the blocks of info governed by EXIF. (An example is IPTC metadata, or Adobe XMP.) The ICC profile itself, if embedded in the image, is not contained in EXIF data but within a separate batch of metadata. EXIF data might contain a truncated form of color space information, essentially just text tags giving the name of the color space that the image should interpreted within, and some other stuff.
If EXIF metadata -- strictly EXIF, that is -- gets stripped, an embedded profile will remain. If all metadata gets stripped, the embedded profile probably will disappear as well.
Here's a good little article covering this:
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/embedded-color-space-information.html
-
Just to add to what Andrew and Royce said - depending on the software you use to create your image files, you may be able to strip the ICC profile (separate from any Exif settings) when the file is saved.
Photoshop has this option built-in to its Save As and Save-for-Web dialogs.
Lightroom always includes the profile on export unless there is some secret setting somewhere that I haven't found yet.
-
Stand up comic #2, awesome and funny video up just today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAIe8CTNSAE
After about 30 seconds of sound and video, nothing but black (thankfully).
-
Stand up comic #2, awesome and funny video up just today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAIe8CTNSAE
After about 30 seconds of sound and video, nothing but black (thankfully).
I'm not really convinced by either of the 2 new videos uploads.
It's like they're trying to keep me in the dark on this topic.
Explanations are a bit obscure don't you think.
-
Video as is appears to be a shame from 0.16 into the piece. Crockett's saying he's an X-rite Coloratti. Really Will? Not seeing you here:
https://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=367
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Crockett.jpg)
Search the entire X-rite site for Crockett, nothing.
-
Stand up comic #2, awesome and funny video up just today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAIe8CTNSAE
After about 30 seconds of sound and video, nothing but black (thankfully).
I think what happened was that they did the video in AdobeRGB and when it got jammed into YouTube's smaller rainbow, its end was truncated. It got muffin-topped. ;D
-
I think what happened was that they did the video in AdobeRGB and when it got jammed into YouTube's smaller rainbow, its end was truncated. It got muffin-topped. ;D
ROTFL!
Another Fong train wreck.
Want to bet they pull it and fix the Coloratti 'Will's Expertise' little white lie?
Talk about another lack of peer review. Can't wait to see what Gary has to say about this little snafu. Yup, it's all the fault of Adobe RGB (1998)!
Is Will and Gary the new Abbott and Costello of color management? Sorry, that's totally unfair, I feel bad. Unfair to Abbott and Costello that is!
Update, the video was just pulled. Damage done. Lie recorded. Game over Gary.
-
Video as is appears to be a shame from 0.16 into the piece
He also states that "your [Gary] video is right".
Off a bad start, not very promising...
I was suggesting earlier to delete both erroneous videos.
Apparently people of managing this channel are also unable multiple corrupted uploads. That might never happen ^_^
-
This whole discussion is about AdobeRGB vs sRGB. If your opinion is the last video is misleading, unprofessional, etc. then this video will have as only the information that was gleaned from the tests. Camera to print, staying in their respective color spaces, and put out for the public to vote. Will they say, "I can't really tell" or will they say, "AdobeRGB is much better"?
I still haven't heard anybody going on record saying that the AdobeRGB is going to win. Just a bunch of snipes off topic.
Gary
I learned Color Management the hard way.
I photographed a wedding in which the bride's mother wore a deep cyan dress. I shot RAW.
When I printed the image file on my properly profiled inkjet printer I could not (initially) match the screen to my print - on the color of that dress alone.
I assumed the printer was wrong. It wasn't. The monitor I was using at the time, whose gamut was closer to sRGB than to the printer's much wider gamut, was clipping the cyans to blue.
I have since invested in a wide gamut monitor and the situation is now very sensible.
But this is a very instructive image.
If I leave it in ProPhoto, or convert to AdobeRGB, and then print on my inkjet (converting to the inkjet profile on the way), I get a true representation of the bride's mother's dress. Deep cyan. She is happy.
If I convert to sRGB and print, I get a blue dress. She is not happy. The color is wrong.
Why would I ever convert to sRGB? (1) to put the image onto the web even though I know that colour is wrong and (2) to demonstrate to students the inadequacy of restricting captured colour to the sRGB color space.
If, in your experiment, each image is finally converted to a good colour profile for your print, and if the color gamut of your inkjet is as wide as mine, I predict the the pictures of all but one of the squares on the colour checker will look exactly the same whether you shot JPEG sRGB or JPEG aRGB. The cyan square will be cyan in the aRGB workflow, and blue in the sRGB. Will it be better? What does that mean? The representation in the aRGB workflow will be more accurate.
Just my 2¢
Tim
-
Now all Gary and Will have to do is hack into the X-rite site and make Will a Coloratti as there's no way they can correct previous mistakes, not in their nature.
-
Now all Gary and Will have to do is hack into the X-rite site and make Will a Coloratti as there's no way they can correct previous mistakes, not in their nature.
That was a good catch Andrew.
I'm anticipating damage control cover up like "I've been a X-Rite coloratti" (former is a long word).
To double check you can ask them by mail directly maybe, the site could totally be outdated.
-
Stand up comic #2, awesome and funny video up just today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAIe8CTNSAE
After about 30 seconds of sound and video, nothing but black (thankfully).
Well, that links comes up with The User Has Removed This Video. So the question is, did they hose the video itself or are they gonna redo it to fix the obvious errors? Or, maybe Gary is just gonna disappear :~)
-
That was a good catch Andrew.
I'm anticipating damage control cover up like "I've been a X-Rite coloratti" (former is a long word).
To double check you can ask them by mail directly maybe, the site could totally be outdated.
Oh I know who to email and ask, being I was one of the first Coloratti when the program began and was rolled out at PMA 2007. It was myself, Steven Johnson, Chris Muraphy, Steve Upton of CHROMIX, Vincent Versace, Andy Katz, Eddie Tapp and one butt ugly jacket:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Coloritti.jpg)
Maybe Will was a Coloratti and got kicked out? No, just kidding ;D
-
Or, maybe Gary is just gonna disappear :~)
Wishful thinking but not in his nature.
-
Oh I know who to email and ask, being I was one of the first Coloratti when the program began and was rolled out at PMA 2007. It was myself, Steven Johnson, Chris Muraphy, Steve Upton of CHROMIX, Vincent Versace, Andy Katz, Eddie Tapp and one butt ugly jacket:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Coloritti.jpg)
Maybe Will was a Coloratti and got kicked out? No, just kidding ;D
Ha, nice story :)
Given recent publications, as X-Rite I would indeed kick him out.
His endorsement and message are an embarrassment really.
Incompatible with X-Rite characteristics :
Featured Coloratti
X-Rite’s Coloratti includes the world’s top professional photographers and filmmakers, a group whose vision, passion, leadership, and partnership are recognized and valued by X-Rite. These individuals are highly respected by their peers and are admired by up-and-coming professionals
-
These individuals are highly respected by their peers and are admired by up-and-coming professionals
Even if Will was (or still is) a Coloratti, the video will still likely be the train wreck expected. And that he isn't listed, that might be even more telling based on the bit about peer respect. Well Gary seems to respect him. Because to be honest, Will has proven to be a color scientist in comparison.
-
So this is why X-Rite products are so expensive, I'm subsidizing jackets of a reddish hue. :)
Brian A
-
Calling it reddish is being kind to what has to be the ugliest color and jacket cut every created.
I'd measure it with an i1 Pro to give you the Lab values but it would fry the Spectrophotometer.
-
Calling it reddish is being kind to what has to be the ugliest color and jacket cut every created.
I'd measure it with an i1 Pro to give you the Lab values but it would fry the Spectrophotometer.
It looks better if you keep it away from the light. Do you think Stephen Johnson did that on purpose?
Jim
-
Calling it reddish is being kind to what has to be the ugliest color and jacket cut every created.
I'd measure it with an i1 Pro to give you the Lab values but it would fry the Spectrophotometer.
Perhaps some confusion over the color space when they chose the jacket color? That sRGB AdobeRGB thing seems confusing to me, more than ever since I watched a couple of YouTube vids.
Brian A
-
The same video is still on Gary`s Youtube Chanel ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg)
-
The same video is still on Gary`s Youtube Chanel ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg)
Indeed :( .
... but when it comes to client jobs, when it comes to everyday stuff, I got to shoot in sRGB too ...
No, he doesn't have to! He converts (from Raw) to sRGB, one hopes.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"More space between the pixels"?
-
"More space between the pixels"?
What he might(!?) be getting at is that the quantization step distance between integer valued RGB coordinates is larger for a larger gamut (the larger 'balloon' but with the same number of discrete steps), which would be correct, if that really is what he is trying to get across. But then I'm an optimist, so I could be misinterpreting him.
I agree that 'space between pixels' is not correct, but then he presumably attempts to lower himself to his perceived level of his audience, one would hope, otherwise it's an insult to their intelligence.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The same video is still on Gary`s Youtube Chanel ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzXqqeC5vc&list=UUmcCVxfpBsl03Qy8WHkaTQg)
Never heard of the guy until mentioned here but watching the video raises some concerns relating to credibility.
Early on stating "Colour I am on a couple of those whatever colour expert teams", not quite sure what they are but.." Surely a person would know exactly what they are?
"Wider space between pixels" ?
On the subject of pro labs printing sRGB I would imagine that all pro labs should be able to handle what you send them and being curious taking two of the names mentioned
Bay Photo
• We prefer JPEGs but we also accept TIFF's and PNG files.
• We prefer sRGB and Adobe RGB, but we accept other RGB color spaces.
White House Custom Colour
2. Select a Working Space for RGB Files.
We recommend either Adobe RGB (1998) or sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
If you are unsure, you probably want sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
No idea what these labs use for printing but I would think it likely that the paper profiles exceed sRGB and they should know what they are doing in handling images?
-
No idea what these labs use for printing but I would think it likely that the paper profiles exceed sRGB and they should know what they are doing in handling images?
In case of older Noritsu (like QSS3201 etc) with standard EZ Controller it was virtually impossible to make prints from other working spaces. Newer Noritsu like 3701HD, 3801HD finally have such option - you still have to define the colour spaces you want to use, but then the controller recognises the colour space of the image automatically.
Fuji Frontiers always had sRGB mode that behaved like in older Noritsu, and PD mode that used whole gamut of c-print emulsion, but you had to manually convert the images to the paper profile.
Large format wet printers(like Lambda, Chromiar) controllers are colour aware and read ICC profiles embedded to the images.
-
"More space between the pixels"?
Hopefully Gary will get Will to come over here and explain that one!
Will is confused between the colorimetric distance of colors and the distance between pixels. I just tried to explain it to him, let's see how he takes it. Of course what he says is utterly ridiculous and sure to confuse the audience. So yes, another Fong train wreck of a color management video and he hasn't even shown the silly sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998) print test video he's working on.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3xSi_Pwvs
1:25 into video:
In order to get consistent and reliable screen to print match, you really do need to use the sRGB color space.
-
OK, I admit it. I read this discussion for...entertainment purposes.
That out of the way, it brings back memories. Of learning Photoshop and color management. (took me a couple days to get my head around the concept)
And I've tried over the years to explain the concept, and I watch the eyes glaze over. Again and again. It's kind of like math phobia. Most people, are just probably never going to get this stuff. Including, some very talented photographers and cinematographers. And millions of people who enjoy photography simply for the pleasure of making images.
I saw Will's recent video and the original video by Gary. Unfortunately more confusing than need be. So, if you are interested in color management and want to learn all this. Luminous-landscape is a very good place to start. And the folks here will be happy to assist you!
If it just seems too difficult to comprehend, you can follow Gary and Will's advice and just shoot sRGB. You'll get the best results from camera to print. Especially if you use a commercial lab. They will assume, absent any other notice, that you have shot in sRGB. So all is good there.
And the best results on the web and in video. (HD Video really does use the sRGB color space!)
If you shoot commercially, and just hand off the files to the client at the end of the day...I guess Will has a point. Just shoot sRGB and hand em' over!
But, please, if you want to understand color spaces, even just a little bit, don't watch these videos.
-
(HD Video really does use the sRGB color space!)
Oh no it doesn't.
-
Unfortunately more confusing than need be.
Confusing and wrong, that's the issue. It can be confusing and correct, I'd be OK with that. That isn't what Will and Gary have provided. Clear and correct is way out of their league too.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3xSi_Pwvs
1:25 into video:
In order to get consistent and reliable screen to print match, you really do need to use the sRGB color space.
There's a bit starting at around 0:50. He says that wedding photographers don't need colours outside sRGB, so it's OK for them to use Adobe RGB, as there won't be any colours that won't show correctly on an sRGB monitor. But for commercial product shooters, shooting vibrant colours (outside sRGB) it's important to use sRGB, or the colours will be wrong on an sRGB monitor.
Umm...
PS - do you think he's been reading too many Calvin and Hobbes cartoons? http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html (http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html)
-
Oh no it doesn't.
I guess you are sort of correct. I over simplified. In HD video, we use REC709 space. It has virtually the same white point and gamma as sRGB. Black and white levels can be different, but one can deliver in "REC709-full range".
And yes, the truth is, that there is no standard gamma in REC709 video either...it's up to the user to set to match their viewing conditions. Usually 2.2 to 2.4) My newish HD tv at home came preset to gamma 2.4. (but I must add that it looks rather closer to 2.2, when set at 2.4!)
And while I'm on the subject, :) , I sometimes color correct feature films (usually one's I've photographed) and we work in, gulp, REC709. But release in PCI-d3 space (which is a little bit bigger)
Why? I've got 3 deliverables: Digital movie theaters, film prints for the few theaters that still show them, and HDtv. My sRGB/REC709 calibrated display shows a gamut that fits entirely into P3 space for digital theater. My work will be viewed identically at the theater after a proper color space transform.
The film print is a different animal entirely. The color space of a film print is quite bigger at certain saturated colors. But the space is quite smaller in many dark colors, especially flesh tones. My film print, after our best effort at color space transform, will be limited by the INTERSECTIONS of the REC709/sRGB and film print color spaces. But, you know what? It looks pretty darn good when done well. Nobody complained when they saw Titanic, and every digital effect shot (the majority of the film) was done just this way :).
In the end, when I work in REC709/sRGB, I don't need to do a trim pass of the whole movie to shoe horn it back into REC709. (we have LUT's for the conversion, but sometimes when there is a lot of out of gamut color, you need to adjust the look). And, the film print is what it is. We assume it's shown in an old theater, with a dim lamp, and cheap tickets...
-
One last thought:
If we do want to start a discussion about learning color spaces, we might want to start with black and white first. There is the whole issue about dynamic range conversion, from camera to screen to print.
I think that many, after understanding monochrome, will then find color spaces much more easy to comprehend.
-
One last thought:
If we do want to start a discussion about learning color spaces, we might want to start with black and white first. There is the whole issue about dynamic range conversion, from camera to screen to print.
I think that many, after understanding monochrome, will then find color spaces much more easy to comprehend.
Is that sRGB black and white or Adobe RGB black and white? ;)
-
I over simplified. In HD video, we use REC709 space.
It's more complex than that. There a range of broadcast standards, but ask a broadcast professional about sRGB and they'll give you a blank look unless they're also photo enthusiasts.
An example might be the range of colourspace options built into the current SOTA HD viewfinder by Sony (HDVF EL75) that has the options to use either ITU709, EBU or SMPTE-C
-
PS - do you think he's been reading too many Calvin and Hobbes cartoons? http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html (http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html)
Absolutely right on! Thanks for that link, Simon.
I well remember my first forays into digital photography about ten years ago. I'm pretty sure the default settings on my Canon 10D were sRGB and jpeg, so that's what I started shooting. I never heard of "raw" until I started visiting LuLa.
It wasn't long before I started regretting that those first pix weren't in raw. As my skills with postprocessing have improved, I have often gone back to redo my earliest raws, but there is little I can do about the first jpegs.
For some types of photography, sRGB and jpegs are indeed perfectly adequate, but urging beginners to make bad decisions for the sake of "simplicity" is cruel.
Gary's videos should all be labeled as "faith-based color management."
-
It's more complex than that. There a range of broadcast standards, but ask a broadcast professional about sRGB and they'll give you a blank look unless they're also photo enthusiasts.
An example might be the range of colourspace options built into the current SOTA HD viewfinder by Sony (HDVF EL75) that has the options to use either ITU709, EBU or SMPTE-C
Paul, when do I need to deliver in smpteC? It's rather outdated, no?
I appreciate your broadcast experience, but, I think here, it's just confusing the issue needlessly.
If my concept is incorrect, could you please explain how?
I think my point was that there can be compelling professional reasons to work in a smaller color space. I do capture in the camera, in a larger space. Just like shooting RAW and outputting sRGB for the web.
-
... It wasn't long before I started regretting that those first pix weren't in raw. As my skills with postprocessing have improved, I have often gone back to redo my earliest raws, but there is little I can do about the first jpegs.
For some types of photography, sRGB and jpegs are indeed perfectly adequate, but urging beginners to make bad decisions for the sake of "simplicity" is cruel...
I think an analogy is in order: would had it been "cruel" to advise beginners to shoot Kodachrome, and instead advise them to do color negatives, as they could always go back and redo those colors and pull out more dynamic range years later? I started my journey into photography with Kodachrome and never regretted that "cruel" choice. It was a tough love, but made me a better photographer.
In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB. In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got should have been less cruel and condescending too.
-
In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB.
I'm surprised you'd write that considering I was under the assumption you've read what many of us have written.
I'm surprised you continue to appear to come to Gary's defence too.
Let me stress this again in as easy to decipher and simplistic English as I can:
I have no issue at all with Gary's choice or recommendation to shoot JPEG/sRGB.
I have an issue with the incorrect language and terminology he used to voice that message. Get it?
He told his audience items that are factually untrue. Many of his statements were flat out wrong. Will just did the same with language that YOU YOURSELF called out (Distance between pixels). That's simply incorrect.
As I wrote this morning on the new video comments area, IF someone produced a video on photography and stated that a 180mm lens has a longer focal lenght than a 200mm lens while recommending telephoto lens, that person would and should be called out by peer review concerning that mistake. What Gary and Will have stated about color management are equally egregious and wrong!
How can you side with this kind of misinformation, let alone say those who try to correct them are cruel is beyond understanding. I and others gave Gary ample time to understand this, he got progressively sillier in his writings back. Yes, some comments got edgy but the facts are, and the paper trail will illustrate that Gary was treated initially with the resepct he's proven at this point he doesn't deserve.
If anyone is being cruel, it is Gary to his audience!
-
I think an analogy is in order: would had it been "cruel" to advise beginners to shoot Kodachrome, and instead advise them to do color negatives, as they could always go back and redo those colors and pull out more dynamic range years later? I started my journey into photography with Kodachrome and never regretted that "cruel" choice. It was a tough love, but made me a better photographer.
In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB. In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got should have been less cruel and condescending too.
+1
While it may not have made a difference, being kind usually provides a climate for understanding and learning, where ridicule usually raises defensive hackles. I'm guilty of poking the bear myself, and not particularly pleased with myself because of it.
Perhaps what drives the ardency here is the commitment to excellence and the willingness to go to that Nth degree to achieve incremental increases in image quality as we all search for the ultimate image. It is hard for us to embrace the "good enough" mentality in our art / work, and even harder to stand by and watch inaccurate info shared - even though it probably doesn't make a meaningful difference for Mr. Fong's legitimate target audience.
Rand
-
I think an analogy is in order: would had it been "cruel" to advise beginners to shoot Kodachrome, and instead advise them to do color negatives, as they could always go back and redo those colors and pull out more dynamic range years later? I started my journey into photography with Kodachrome and never regretted that "cruel" choice.
If we were shooting 6 bit RAW, I would agree with this analogy :)
-
Andrew, I was responding to Eric's qualifaction
... Let me stress this again in as easy to decipher and simplistic English as I can:
I have no issue at all with Gary's choice or recommendation to shoot JPEG/sRGB.
I have an issue with the incorrect language and terminology he used to voice that message. Get it?...
Andrew,
You keep stressing "English" to people who obviously are not native speakers, but never mind. I think I managed to "get" your position, however limited my English might be.
I was directly quoting not you, but my friend Eric, and his description of jpeg/sRGB advice as "cruel." The rest of my post is a play on that phrase. You also quoted just the first part of what I was saying, thus omitting the following:
In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got...
-
In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB. In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got should have been less cruel and condescending too.
I'm generally pretty forgiving of mistakes — we all make them. But Gary really has this coming — his response to level headed (and correct) criticism is to attack the commenter, assert that they are one of the people that "know nothing", and reassert his expertise in color that somehow results from his history of manufacturing plastic. Go back and read his response to Alex Uriatin on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU Alex is 100% correct and friendly — Gary's response? "You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." He is completely wrong in so many places and has not even come close to correcting the mistakes — he just asserts that the critics know nothing and tries to put a smoke screen or change the subject.
-
You keep stressing "English" to people who obviously are not native speakers, but never mind.
My apologies. I have no way and have been given no way to know what anyone's native language is. Over the years posting here, the language used has been English. It is the only language I know and to be honest, I'm jealous and always impressed with those who can speak more than one language.
I think I managed to "get" your position, however limited my English might be.
Excellent. Then I hope you agree that initially, up to about the 15th+ exchange with Gary here and initially on his video site, I attempted to be the opposite of cruel. Gary has proven to me he doesn't deserve any further respectful exchanges. Gary is the fellow who IMHO is cruel to his audience. Gary's message has merit, his methods of providing them are diluted in misinformation and misdirection.
-
... Gary... reassert his expertise in color that somehow results from his history of manufacturing plastic...
See? That is exactly the type of comment that I was referring to as unnecessarily cruel (o.k., maybe just inaccurate, nasty, sarcastic and condescending). Gary's expertise (or "expertise," if you insist) comes from his history of running a successful print lab, not "manufacturing plastic." Besides, referring to his flash diffusers as "manufactured plastic" is equally nasty, sarcastic and condescending.
The fact that Mr. Fong resorted to undeniably wrong responses himself does not necessarily excuse our type of response. Two wrongs do not make one right.
-
My point was that credentials, whether they be plastic manufacturing, running a lab, or being a photographer are all meaningless when he is so blatantly, and obviously wrong. We're no talking subtleties — just flat out misleading, wrong information based on a profoundly incorrect understanding of how basic color management works. Rather than trying to rectify the situation, he posts a sprawling resume as proof of his understanding and once again claims "…I intimately know color management". But it's not true and he is selling his ignorance to unsuspecting beginners. Add to this his method of defending his ideas: go on the attack, and it's hard to have any sympathy. In theory, Slobodan, you are right and I appreciate that you are taking the higher ground — but I don't have it in me in this case. There's just too many snake oil salesman in the photo industry these days all trying to make a buck of off photographers, both amateurs and professionals.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JxXL_arbA
Took only 50 seconds to explain what Gary and Will should and could have done, all without misinformation, muffin tops, selecting display profiles and showing how to improperly handle the data to deliberately make it look poor to produce a negative outcome they desire.
The 2nd 50 odd seconds allows the viewer to decide if they want to learn more or just move on.
How friggin difficult is that Gray (and Will)?
-
And now something completely different: :)
-
The fact that Mr. Fong resorted to undeniably wrong responses himself does not necessarily excuse our type of response. Two wrongs do not make one right.
You have a good point, but considering the amount of condescension and name-calling that Gary has done and, more importantly, the blatant mis-quoting and mis-representation that he has done regarding what people here and on YouTube have wrote - I would say that the feedback has been remarkably restrained. I would consider most of it "humorous", rather than "nasty".
Besides that, I think that Gary got what he wanted. He had been down this road before, he knew the response he was going to get, and he wanted "views" and "page hits" to promote his premium training channel. If there is one area where I don't doubt his expertise, it's in marketing and attracting his target prospects.
-
... Besides that, I think that Gary got what he wanted. He had been down this road before, he knew the response he was going to get, and he wanted "views" and "page hits" to promote his premium training channel. If there is one area where I don't doubt his expertise, it's in marketing and attracting his target prospects.
That did cross my mind, as a possible business model. Like politicians who consider opponents' attacks a badge of honor, earning them even more points with their constituents.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be smarter for us not to provide the ammunition ;)
-
Is it my imagination or has the original Youtube comment section been edited to remove most comments that do not agree? Perhaps edited in sRGB losing the nuances of AccurateRGB ;D
-
Is it my imagination or has the original Youtube comment section been edited to remove most comments that do not agree?
I don't think so. I'm not sure that is possible unless Gary reports it as spam and the YouTube folks delete it. I believe most if not all my replies are still there. At one point Gray said:I found a way to silence you, and I can't find that. He can delete his own posts and if he's smart, he will (or did).
-
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be smarter for us not to provide the ammunition ;)
No, because as his peers, if we can be so kind to him, our comments which will not change his mind might change the minds of others looking to see if he's telling the truth or not.
In the end there are only a couple possibilities. One possibility is people take whatever he says as gospel. No one can help them.
2nd would be people who do question what he's saying and see that others are questioning what he says, maybe study up and come over to the side of science and peer review.
That he has to defend his positions (and poorly) might also convince him to stay away from topics he doesn't understand. I've only viewed his two silly video's on color management. He might be a brilliant photographer and produce really good video's on lighting, don't know. I'm not about to dispute anything he has to teach other than color management at this point.
-
I don't think so. I'm not sure that is possible unless Gary reports it as spam and the YouTube folks delete it. I believe most if not all my replies are still there. At one point Gray said:I found a way to silence you, and I can't find that. He can delete his own posts and if he's smart, he will (or did).
On YouTube, as publisher of a video or channel page moderator you can moderate any comment to your liking, meaning delete them or ban people, which is unfortunately often necessary when the subscriber base gets huge.
If your comment was also posted in public you'll still be able to see on your Google+ feed as a post however it won't appear anymore in the video comments.
-
If your comment was also posted in public you'll still be able to see on your Google+ feed as a post however it won't appear anymore in the video comments.
Ah cool, that's what I've been doing, thanks. So he hasn't and can't delete them but I do still see them on his video feed.
-
Just went to my YouTube and see one of Gary's silly posts:
You aren't a professional photographer. What makes you a pro again? Yes you do make mistakes all the time. Also, you do sell something, which is books about color management. I have nothing to gain financially in helping people understand why their AdobeRGB prints look dull on sRGB equipment. But you do, and I have found out a lot about you today. I cannot wait until I do my Skype video interviews for YouTube.
I see I could but will not delete it.
It can be reported as Spam too.
-
Ah cool, that's what I've been doing, thanks. So he hasn't and can't delete them but I do still see them on his video feed.
Andrew, I am sure that early on in the comments you explained to Gary that you were trying to help and this elicited more response and felt sure that you also replied in depth. These are the responses that I cannot see any longer using the link provided in post #1.
-
Andrew, I am sure that early on in the comments you explained to Gary that you were trying to help and this elicited more response and felt sure that you also replied in depth. These are the responses that I cannot see any longer using the link provided in post #1.
Then he probably did delete them. So not only is he wrong about the subject, he's inflecting censorship. The guy is a class act!
-
These are the responses that I cannot see any longer using the link provided in post #1.
Shame. I did log out of Google and a lot of comments disappear, including one I posted to Will's video:
This is another example of a video from Fong and company that get the technical aspects of the subject completely wrong. The message has merit (if you don’t know the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), set your camera to sRGB for JPEG). The issue so many people have with these video’s isn’t about workflow, it is about how the presenters get their facts so utterly wrong and in the process confuse their audience and make themselves look foolish. Color management is a complex topic, there is no excuse for dumbing it down so much that the bits and pieces of the presentation are technically flat out wrong.
If I or someone else produced a video on photography and stated that a 180mm lens is a longer focal length than a 200mm lens, Will, Gary and anyone else who knows the facts could and should point the error out and the video should be fixed. This is called peer review. It isn’t personal not that Gary didn’t take such comments that way and we’ll see about Will.
Case in point. If Will is going to steal my analog of color spaces and balloons, at least get it right and don’t say something that is utterly silly; the distance between pixels gets larger? NO. Open the same document in sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) within Photoshop, zoom in as far as you can. There is no difference between the distance of the pixels whatever that is supposed to mean. Will either doesn’t understand the concept or can’t explain it. Will, don’t take this personally. The distance is between colors, not pixels! The distance is the colorimetric distance between two colors of close values such as Red 201/Green 1/Blue 1 and Red 200/Green 2/Blue 1. The deltaE (color difference) larger in Adobe RGB than sRGB. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with pixels. Just as Adobe RGB (1998) doesn’t have MORE colors than sRGB encoded the same. Gary refuses to accept these facts. You don’t have to go down that path but if you do, you’ll only have yourself to blame. And a responsibility to your audience which is really the greatest harm you do by getting the facts mangled.
Telling an audience the distance between pixels is larger is as incorrect as saying a 180mm lens has a longer focal length than a 200mm lens. Would you ever say that Will? I hope not.
In the last train wreck of a video on color from Gary, at least a dozen different people both on his site and in the Luminous Landscape forums pointed out his errors. Are all these people wrong and Gary right? Consider not a single person came to back up the fallacies of Gary's expect perhaps (perhaps?) Will Crockett in this one video. Where is the peer review?
For lurkers who wonder, is Will and Gary correct? Are all the other people just jealous or mad at them? NO! We believe a complex technical subject such as color management and color theory should be presented correctly and based on facts and correct color theory. You're not getting that from these two presenters.
We could go into the other mistakes in Will's video above and beyond his balloon analogy. That can wait for now, let's see how Will reacts to this and other posts here that have suggested while his message has merit, the facts presented are far from correct and accurate. Even what he says about labs demanding sRGB, is inaccurate (Bay Photo and White House will gladly accept Adobe RGB unless their web site is wrong and Will is correct). You'd think he'd check that before committing such a comment to video.
Will, have you read the pages upon pages of posts on LuLa color management forum dismissing Gary's video you are defending? You should as should others IF they really want to know if what Gary is proposing is based on sound color management and color theory (he isn't):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92767.300
-
It seems he's deleted most of the critical comments.
My comment that I probably should have just passed on:
I appreciate the you are trying to make this concept accessible to people. But you are totally wrong on the details. It starts here:
"…the colors at both ends of the rainbow are the same. The difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB is that there's more colors in between."
This is demonstrably false. The colors at the extremes of each color space are not the same. A key part of the definition of color spaces is that they have different primaries. The reddest red of AdobeRGB is a different color than reddest red of sRGB. The same is true fro green and blue. The second part is also wrong. There are precisely the same number of colors in AdobeRGB as there are in sRGB. Each channel goes from 0-255 giving you precisely 2^24 (16.8 million) colors in each space. If you want a greater number of colors you need to move to high bit depth such as 16bit RGB. This is a very basic misunderstanding and is going to confuse people and set them in the wrong direction.
Another thing thing that is going confuse people is suggesting they set their monitor profile to sRGB and or AdobeRGB. This is never the right the thing to do and even using it for demonstration purposes is confusing at best.
I think a good rule of thumb is that if you can't do the color math to go from RGB to XYZ to LAB on the back of a napkin, you probably shouldn't be giving people technical explanations.
and his response:
+Mark Meyer you're completely wrong when you say there are the same number of colors in sRGB vs AdobeRGB. I found this great video showing a 3d color frame sRGB has about 900k colors. This is pretty basic, and most everybody knows that the data points between colors is more diverse in AdobeRGB which has 1.3M colors, or 45% more. This video is really interesting until he gets to the end at 2:13 then there's some errors. Introducing sony-a7r.com
I didn't tell anybody to set their monitor to anything. What I was showing was a wide gamut file going into a narrow space. The principle here in this video was this - many people complain that as soon as they change their setting to AdobeRGB, their colors get dull. I did not mean to say the colors at each end of the spectrum were the identical value, what I meant was, you'll get all of your reds, all of your violets when staying in the same width of color space.
I'm still not sure where those numbers — 1.3M and 900K — come from. Considering an 8bit image has 1.7M possible values, it suggests that I should be able to find 300K AdobeRGB triplets that are somehow not in AdobeRGB and 700K sRGB values (almost half of the available values) that aren't sRGB colors. It makes zero sense. I asked if he would provide just one of the 300K adobeRGB triplets, but he didn't.
-
I'm still not sure where those numbers — 1.3M and 900K — come from.
Gamut volume report from ColorThink. He of course deleted the post I made he didn't understand about what those numbers represent.
Nearly all my original posts are gone too if I log off Google.
So while Gary is so sure he's right and we are all wrong, he's spineless enough to delete posts from those who disagree with his flat earth ideas about color.
Maybe he will not reappear here after all.
-
Gamut volume report from ColorThink.
Makes about as much sense as figuring out how many different speeds my car can go by measuring the circumference of the speedometer.
-
Makes about as much sense as figuring out how many different speeds my car can go by measuring the circumference of the speedometer.
Exactly. He's seeing a numeric value that has nothing to do with the number of colors but is sure it has everything to do with the number of colors.
In one post I tried to explain that the larger values of the two reports do not backup his silly understanding that Adobe RGB has more colors than sRGB. I told him that it is like looking at a yardstick and saying it is smaller than 36 inches because 1 yard is using a smaller number than 36 inches. He of course didn't get it. And there is the rub. He goes to another video site that showed the gamut volume report from ColorThink that stated Adobe RGB has more colors than sRGB. That site was wrong too. Rather than examine the facts provided, since the one incorrect site backs up what he believes to be true, it's true in his tiny brain.
I provided information from the ColorThink's Wiki that explains the report and pointed out that no where does it say the volume has anything to do with the number of colors. He ignored that. Then I suggested that a 48-bit file has more addressable possible colors than a 24-bit file, but no where when viewing the gamut of a profile does bit depth ever come into play. So was the report based on one bit depth or the other? Answer: neither. He didn't get it. Lastly I suggested that believing that the gamut volume report showed bigger numbers between the Adobe and sRGB color space equates to one having more colors was like believing that a gallon of milk has more colors than a quart of water. He still didn't get it.
-
This crusade starts to be a standup comic by itself, I'm afraid ;D Those who don't understand it will never and those who do have understood from the first postings.... So what's the big point in continuing?
-
Does anybody in this forum believe that Gary is going to admit he was wrong and rectify?
Sorry friends, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN
- he has been successful running business
- arrogant
- full of pride
This is what I call the CEO mindset, he will never admit being wrong, no matter what. All he is doing is damage control of this little crisis where the opponents are just a few technocrats here and his supporters are an audience of people not interested in color management theory. That's why he will edit or censor comments, invite to interviews, etc.
- His advise is correct and most of us agree (use sRGB if you don't know anything about)
- His evidence (contrived or not) is also right (an image in Adobe RGB will look desaturated in a color-unmanaged environment
- What is wrong is the "why", which is complete nonsense, but unfortunately many will not care or will not understand anyway.
As I said before, this is a hopeless case
Regards
-
is correct and most of us agree (use sRGB if you don't know anything about)
- His evidence (contrived or not) is also right (an image in Adobe RGB will look desaturated in a color-unmanaged environment
This evidence is actually just a coincidence that occurs when going from wide spaces to narrow in non-managed environments. Any large space will desaturate when assigned the profile of a smaller space. And sRGB will desaturate if assigned a still smaller space. I experience the opposite effect when seeing sRGB on a wide gamut monitor — the result is hyper-saturated with unmanaged sRGB images but looks pretty close to normal with an AdobeRGB image.
-
Does anybody in this forum believe that Gary is going to admit he was wrong and rectify?
No and as I pointed out, the paper trail here isn't about trying to educate Gray, he's beyond help. It is to provide a rebuttal to anyone who might question if Gary is full of crap; the consensus here is, he is.
-
This evidence is actually just a coincidence that occurs when going from wide spaces to narrow in non-managed environments. Any large space will desaturate when assigned the profile of a smaller space. And sRGB will desaturate if assigned a still smaller space. I experience the opposite effect when seeing sRGB on a wide gamut monitor — the result is hyper-saturated with unmanaged sRGB images but looks pretty close to normal with an AdobeRGB image.
You're absolutely right. I wrongly assumed that anybody who has a wide gamut monitor will have it in a color managed environment and oversimplified my previous comment
-
You're absolutely right. I wrongly assumed that anybody who has a wide gamut monitor will have it in a color managed environment and oversimplified my previous comment
Yes — that's probably a safe assumption. Still, when I watched a bit of that Will Crockett video, he looked like a tomato.
-
I provided information from the ColorThink's Wiki that explains the report and pointed out that no where does it say the volume has anything to do with the number of colors. He ignored that.
Actually, Andrew, I think he touched on something that is almost correct in a certain way, although it gets into some very esoteric concepts that he has repeatedly said he doesn't want to get into for his audience. I also think it was accidental on his part and just part of his desperate, random copying and pasting from every Googled site he could come across that looked like it remotely agreed with him (ironically something he criticized everyone else for pretty much at the beginning).
Here is where I think he accidentally touched on something that could be considered "correct":
If you are talking about "uniquely identifiable colors" as identified by a human being, then since AdobeRGB has a wider gamut and since there is a limit to the color differences that can be perceived by a human, then one might say that AdobeRGB can contain more uniquely-identifiable colors than sRGB.
This is hinted at in the ColorWiki (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/ColorThink_Pro_-_Profile_Inspector_%26_Renamer#Monitor_Profiles) where it explains the Gamut Volume number:
"The gamut volume number here represents cubic Lab values. This provides a reasonable approximation of the number of uniquely perceptible colors contained in a device's color gamut. This is intended for relative comparison purposes only."
It's even kind of interesting to note that the approximations that the Profile Inspector provides are much less than even what 24-bit RGB would provide.
There are several important caveats that I see, however, that prevent someone from saying that AdobeRGB "has more colors":
- I assume that when "perceptible" is used, it is referring to a human being. There can still be many more colors correctly recorded; they just won't necessary be perceived as different by a human viewer.
- The non-perceptible colors can become perceptible as the image is edited.
- And even if you say that you are basing your statement on "uniquely perceptible colors", you still can't say AdobeRGB has more colors; you have to say that AdobeRGB can contain more colors. It's like trying to say a big parking lot has more cars than a small one. You can't say that. You have to say that a big parking lot has the ability to hold more cars than a small one.
All of this just reflects my limited understanding so I'm completely open to corrections and clarifications.
-
No and as I pointed out, the paper trail here isn't about trying to educate Gray, he's beyond help. It is to provide a rebuttal to anyone who might question if Gary is full of crap; the consensus here is, he is.
So then it's done and we can move on, right?
-
So then it's done and we can move on, right?
Oh, no way, Hans!
What would we bitch and argue about then? Cruel Bernard closed the Israeli-Palestinian thread recently, so what else to do? Go to Ferguson? Too late, it apparently calmed down quicker than this thread. ;)
-
Oh, no way, Hans!
What would we bitch and argue about then? Cruel Bernard closed the Israeli-Palestinian thread recently, so what else to do? Go to Ferguson? Too late, it apparently calmed down quicker than this thread. ;)
Can I suggest Prophoto RGB versus Adobe RGB?!
-
There are several important caveats that I see, however, that prevent someone from saying that AdobeRGB "has more colors":
Yes indeed. What constitutes a color in this context? For example, the encoding of just 24 bit's of color could define 16.7 million colors, I don't know anyone who suggests we can see anything like that number of colors as they are not distinct enough to be different to the human observer.
If one captures a gray card in both sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), now what?
-
So then it's done and we can move on, right?
Yes, you have permission to move on.
Are you suggesting the tread be locked? Before we give Gary a chance to come back and tell us all about his new video and how sRGB won?
-
OK we made prints! There was a visible difference in the AdobeRGB file printed on AdobeRGB dry process. The AdobeRGB had richer saturation, visibly richer saturation. The AdobeRGB printed on sRGB of course had duller colors, as one would expect. So, in order of color richness, it was 1)AdobeRGB, 2) sRGB and 3) AdobeRGB on sRGB.
This is exactly what I expected, as I mentioned in the video. The AdobeRGB is the choice IF you have the equipment to express it. To go further,
We also did a number of web tests with both Windows and Macs. At the lab, they had a wide gamut monitor, and I have a Mac Thunderbolt monitor. On Safari for Mac, AdobeRGB looked better than sRGB, but on Windows it looked worse. On Firefox and Chrome on both formats, the AdobeRGB looked worse.
We're now doing tests on our mobile devices and uploads to Facebook. I will do a video on YouTube to show all of these results.
One thing that is probably going to drive people crazy is that if a photographer wants to show their images in the best presentation, there almost should be a button on their websites to redirect to the "Safari for Mac" version of the website, because as far as I can tell, it is the only color aware browser.
Windows Safari says it is, but the AdobeRGB image looked visibly more dull.
-
The AdobeRGB printed on sRGB of course had duller colors, as one would expect.
You didn't treat the data correctly.
The AdobeRGB is the choice IF you have the equipment to express it.
All equipment will express it. If you read Czornyj's post (Reply #306), some will not allow you to send that data to the front end. There's a big difference between the two! It would be useful if you understood that. The native color space of this and all other printers isn't anything like sRGB!
One thing that is probably going to drive people crazy is that if a photographer wants to show their images in the best presentation, there almost should be a button on their websites to redirect to the "Safari for Mac" version of the website, because as far as I can tell, it is the only color aware browser.
Incorrect. There are a number of color managed browsers (such as FireFox) but you have to configure color management which obviously you didn't do.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
-
Personally, to try quickly a browser I like the Petapixel example is it leaves no doubt thanks to the funky profile used.
http://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/
This one is more theoretical and complete:
http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/
-
Personally, to try quickly a browser I like the Petapixel example is it leaves no doubt thanks to the funky profile used.
http://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/
This one is more theoretical and complete:
http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/
Garry's page certainly isn't as pretty but what I like is he explains how all the issues in detail and how to set them up, also what is assumed for untagged data.
-
We're now doing tests on our mobile devices and uploads to Facebook. I will do a video on YouTube to show all of these results.
Only Firefox/Android supports color management so far, last time I checked it was requiring enabling a hidden setting manually tho it might have changed since.
On this topic, please don't make the typical mistake to say "smartphones and tablets displays are sRGB" like Will did in his video on your channel.
Mobile devices right now both lack any sort of color management while they're the ones needing it the most due to incredible variety between displays.
From cheap or because much tuned for power efficiency panels with crazy small gamuts to widest on the industry right now (using both AMOLED or IPS LCD)
Add that to far too often gamma curves, mobile devices can't be resumed as "sRGB", more like a mess instead :P
-
On this topic, please don't make the typical mistake to say "smartphones and tablets displays are sRGB" like Will did in his video on your channel.
But aren’t the pixels farther apart, that's what the faux Coloratti said in that video? ;D
-
But aren’t the pixels farther apart, that's what the faux Coloratti said in that video? ;D
Ya know, somebody should let Liz know what's he's doing…I'll try to send her an email (she still likes me :~)
-
But aren’t the pixels farther apart, that's what the faux Coloratti said in that video? ;D
I wouldn't blame people too much not knowing mobile in details.
Today it's a domain very few investigated.
Those who do don't necessarily understand all the specifics of this platform, ending sometimes into some large mistakes in their analysis and evaluations.
That's why I'm available for any question on the subject and offer help and tools to reviewers.
-
Ya know, somebody should let Liz know what's he's doing…I'll try to send her an email (she still likes me :~)
Go for it, (I didn't want to be a tattle-tail ::))
-
I wouldn't blame people too much not knowing mobile in details.
Agreed, I know next to nothing about em.
FWIW, pretty sure he was referring to non-mobile devices.
-
It seems he's deleted most of the critical comments.
My comment that I probably should have just passed on:
and his response:
I'm still not sure where those numbers — 1.3M and 900K — come from. Considering an 8bit image has 1.7M possible values, it suggests that I should be able to find 300K AdobeRGB triplets that are somehow not in AdobeRGB and 700K sRGB values (almost half of the available values) that aren't sRGB colors. It makes zero sense. I asked if he would provide just one of the 300K adobeRGB triplets, but he didn't.
Those values represent the gamut volume in cubic DeltaE values. 1 DeltaE is a just perceptible difference in color, which has 3 dimensions, hence the cubic value. Norman Koren (http://www.gamutvision.com/docs/gamutvision_equations.html) briefly describes how it is calculated and points out that it can be visualized by the 3D gamut plots provided by Colorthink or his own Gamutvision program. Bruce Lindbloom lists the gamut volume for various color spaces as follows: L*a*b, 2,381,085; Adobe RGB, 1,208,631, sRGB, 832,658; and ProPhotoRGB 2,879,058. The L*a*b efficiencies (the percent of the entire Lab Gamut [i.e. all colors visible to the eye] that the working space encompasses) are 97.0%, 100%, 100% and 91.2% respectively. This article from RIT (the link (http://cias.rit.edu/media/uploads/faculty-s-projects/666/documents/40/color-gamut-quantified.pdf) is to a PDF) describes the calculations in more detail.
The L*a*b gamut efficiency is less than 100% with integer encoding. Some of the values in ProPhotoRGB are outside the gamut of human vision and do not represent real colors, which are visible by definition.
Bill
-
Thanks Bill,
I finally recognized those values from the volume given by ColorThink. The Norman Koren method of calculating gamut volume is new to me - thanks for the link. A while back I tried to figure out why Bruce Lindbloom reported lower volumes for standard spaces than ColorThink. This is probably the answer. In case you're interested, I used a simple Monty Carlo method and came in more or less exact agreement with Bruce's numbers: http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2011/jun/29/calculating-color-space-volumes/
I'm not sure I would go as far as to equate the number of perceivably unique colors in a file with the "number of colors" (and I'm pretty sure that's not what Gary meant) unless it's clear we're talking about the perceivable values rather than the measured values. Maybe I'm just a pixel peeper, but it seems that unique values are pretty important for the reasons Mr. or Ms. Eyeball listed in his/her caveats above (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92767.msg756320#msg756320). As far as I'm concerned a 24-bit file has 24 bits of information even if I can't visually distinguish them.
-
I'm not sure I would go as far as to equate the number of perceivably unique colors in a file with the "number of colors" (and I'm pretty sure that's not what Gary meant) unless it's clear we're talking about the perceivable values rather than the measured values.
He's not talking about any of that. Here's exactly what I heard from Gray in terms of 'number of colors' after showing two spectrum's and specifying them as sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998)
0.57.…And the colors at either side of the rainbow are the same (not true). What the difference is between Adobe RGB and sRGB is there are more colors in-between.
3:19: People will tell you Adobe RGB is better because it has more color information, that’s true. But the color information in between this is wider. It doesn’t mean it has less colors. It means the values between the colors are more points of data. And really, honestly you can’t see them visually to the naked eye.
4:04 (describing the ColorChecker SG)…There’s just a whole zillon different color checkers of colors…
-
The L*a*b efficiencies (the percent of the entire Lab Gamut [i.e. all colors visible to the eye]
I don't understand how you can have a volume of colors visible to the human eye. If you plot it in xyY and pick any point on the surface, what happens if you make it brighter (i.e. extend directly up the Y axis)? It's still within the spectral limits on the xy axis, so it should still be visible to the human eye, just brighter, yet outside the volume.
I found the plots here: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/LabGamutDisplay.html And they look more like possible surface colors, not all visible colors. In other words, the volume represents all the possible surface colors under a given illuminant (the limit being that the surface can't reflect more power of a particular wavelength than is incident upon it). The gamut plot in xyY on that page looks exactly like the MacAdam Color Solid, which is a plot of object color space, not human vision. Maybe a distinction without a difference…
-
Firefox is fully color management capable in windows and Mac. The issue is that it is not enabled by default and the setting is not straightforward.
In the following link the instructions:
http://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-management/ (http://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-management/)
Regards
-
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_28:_The_PowerBook_G4_displays_16.7_million_colors_.28or_any_display.2C_for_that_matter.29
The PowerBook G4 displays 16.7 million colors (or any display, for that matter)
This is not true. Don't confuse RGB number combinations with the number of perceivable colors.
I can send 16.7 million different RGB NUMBER combinations to a PowerBook display (3 channels with 8 bits per channel) but it will only display 518,733 different colors. This means that 16,258,483 of the RGB numbers are basically "wasted". Another way of looking at this is to say that the entire gamut of 518,733 colors is chopped into 16.7 million separately addressable "chunks". Problem is, the difference between each of these chunks is smaller than is perceivable by humans. So if you glom chunks together until each blob is just barely perceivably different than the next, you'll end up with 518,733 of them.
That explanation is a bit of a stretch but sometimes it helps to break these things down to understand them. (pun intended)
This confusion is another example of the difference between RGB and CMYK values and actual colors.
Another example of this is with CMYK devices. I can send 100,000,000 CMYK values to print on newsprint (100x100x100x100). Does that mean I'm going to get that many actual colors? No, of course not. If I send those CMYK values to a sheet-fed press on glossy coated paper will I get that many colors? No, but I'll get more than I did from newsprint. I'd probably see even more from an inkjet. While I can address the colors on a press using CMYK combinations, each CMYK combination will not produce a unique color.
Thanks for reading,
Steve Upton
-
Adobe RGB is better because it has more color information
That one is especially grating because, as we know, information is very often expressed in bits. But mention bit depth in this context and you're an example of someone who knows nothing about the subject.
-
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_28:_The_PowerBook_G4_displays_16.7_million_colors_.28or_any_display.2C_for_that_matter.29
This explanation is so much of a stretch that I don't see what it means.
Is it based on the assumption that people don't see difference lower than 3 Delta E?
A bit too much of a generalization, when banding is so visible with non-dithered 8bit per channel.
-
Is it based on the assumption that people don't see difference lower than 3 Delta E?
Probably a dE of 1 I suspect.
-
Thanks Bill,
I finally recognized those values from the volume given by ColorThink. The Norman Koren method of calculating gamut volume is new to me - thanks for the link. A while back I tried to figure out why Bruce Lindbloom reported lower volumes for standard spaces than ColorThink. This is probably the answer. In case you're interested, I used a simple Monty Carlo method and came in more or less exact agreement with Bruce's numbers: http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2011/jun/29/calculating-color-space-volumes/
Mark,
I looked at your Monte Carlo method and found it ingenious. Somewhat off topic remarks are the most valuable parts of this thread.
Bill
-
Somewhat off topic remarks are the most valuable parts of this thread.
Indeed! The very reason not to close it, folks that suggest moving on can just do so.
-
Thanks Bill, I wish I could take more credit — just applying an old method.
I agree, it would be odd to close a thread just because people are participating.
-
Ya know, somebody should let Liz know what's he's doing…I'll try to send her an email (she still likes me :~)
I did…not bad to get it from both of us...
-
OK we made prints! There was a visible difference in the AdobeRGB file printed on AdobeRGB dry process. The AdobeRGB had richer saturation, visibly richer saturation. The AdobeRGB printed on sRGB of course had duller colors, as one would expect. So, in order of color richness, it was 1)AdobeRGB, 2) sRGB and 3) AdobeRGB on sRGB.
This is exactly what I expected, as I mentioned in the video. The AdobeRGB is the choice IF you have the equipment to express it. To go further,
We also did a number of web tests with both Windows and Macs. At the lab, they had a wide gamut monitor, and I have a Mac Thunderbolt monitor. On Safari for Mac, AdobeRGB looked better than sRGB, but on Windows it looked worse. On Firefox and Chrome on both formats, the AdobeRGB looked worse.
We're now doing tests on our mobile devices and uploads to Facebook. I will do a video on YouTube to show all of these results.
One thing that is probably going to drive people crazy is that if a photographer wants to show their images in the best presentation, there almost should be a button on their websites to redirect to the "Safari for Mac" version of the website, because as far as I can tell, it is the only color aware browser.
Windows Safari says it is, but the AdobeRGB image looked visibly more dull.
Honestly this is just like watching endless reruns of the planes flying into the World Trade Centre on 9/11.
The disaster never gets any better only more nauseating and stressful with each run.
Tony Jay
-
There are a number of color managed browsers (such as FireFox) but you have to configure color management which obviously you didn't do.
...and profile the display :D OSX reads chromatic coordinates of the connected display from EDID, automatically creates profile and assigns it to the device in color sync settings. Windows is not that smart.
-
Firefox is fully color management capable in windows and Mac. The issue is that it is not enabled by default and the setting is not straightforward.
Beware - it uses a retarded, unmaintained color engine, so can't handle all ICC profile types.
-
Mark,
I looked at your Monte Carlo method and found it ingenious. Somewhat off topic remarks are the most valuable parts of this thread.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Beware - it uses a retarded, unmaintained color engine, so can't handle all ICC profile types.
References? It allows the detection and activation of ICC version 2 and 4 profiles, so which ones does it not handle?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Beware - it uses a retarded, unmaintained color engine, so can't handle all ICC profile types.
Thanks for the info. I googled around about it. Do they still use their own qcms?
-
Do they still use their own qcms?
As far as I'm aware, yes. Switching back to lcms would be the smart thing to do...
-
Beware - it uses a retarded, unmaintained color engine, so can't handle all ICC profile types.
Not in my experience. Firefox has always displayed perfectly here, with all types of profiles.
To test, I just made a v4 LUT display profile in ColorNavigator (for a CG 246), and compared Photoshop and Firefox:
-
As far as I'm aware, yes. Switching back to lcms would be the smart thing to do...
I seem to recall this was fanatically and bitterly argued over on the Firefox forum a couple of years ago. I can't remember the arguments, which were little to do with the quality of the colour management, but the Firefox team had made a decision, for some reason lcms wouldn't work in the latest Firefox, and they weren't going spend time fixing it.
The thing with colour management: it would appear that only about 0.0000000000000000000001% of browser users care about colour management, and the people that write browser software regard it as kind of nice to have, but couldn't really give a toss.
Consider Microsoft: they have people that know all about colour management, and they designed the Windows Color System (WCS) to provide a fairly sophisticated colour management system, but some 8 years later the Internet Explorer team still can't be bothered to implement colour management properly in Internet Explorer. It never gets to the top 100 in the list of issues to be fixed.
I reckon the only thing that will change things could be the use of 4k wide-gamut monitors, where suddenly colour management does matter, and has to be done automatically so that even the likes of Gary Fong don't need to understand it to make it work.
-
for some reason lcms wouldn't work in the latest Firefox, and they weren't going spend time fixing it.
It's rubbish that it wouldn't work. There was a purported security bug (quickly fixed by Marti), and some concerns over speed for the common case that lcms2 addressed.
The thing with colour management: it would appear that only about 0.0000000000000000000001% of browser users care about colour management, and the people that write browser software regard it as kind of nice to have, but couldn't really give a toss.
That's pretty much the case for most applications and platforms. Most programmers don't know much about color (RGB is RGB, right ?), and aren't that interested in a complex subject. Understanding it and getting it right takes a bit of effort.
Consider Microsoft: they have people that know all about colour management, and they designed the Windows Color System (WCS) to provide a fairly sophisticated colour management system, but some 8 years later the Internet Explorer team still can't be bothered to implement colour management properly in Internet Explorer. It never gets to the top 100 in the list of issues to be fixed.
It comes down to fashion and personalities. For a while someone with some weight to throw around in MS decided that they needed to catch up with Apple, and invested money and resources in collecting a capable team and doing something new. The project was completed, and then the management attention shifted to other things (or people principally behind it fell out of favor - etc.), so the project was reduced to maintanence status. Similar things seem to have happened at Apple. Once upon a time, being the creative persons platform of choice was important to Apple so they put effort into things like Color. Now they are a mobile platform company, they don't even document their color API's, and their mobile platform doesn't have color management.
I reckon the only thing that will change things could be the use of 4k wide-gamut monitors, where suddenly colour management does matter, and has to be done automatically so that even the likes of Gary Fong don't need to understand it to make it work.
I'm not sure 4K will make much difference - it seems like another fad with the same goals as "3D" - to sell more TV's, but it is likely to founder on the same rocks - lack of media (or even a means of delivering it) that makes use of the capabilities.
-
Not in my experience. Firefox has always displayed perfectly here, with all types of profiles.
It looks like they may have added cLUT support, but there certainly was a problem after qcms replaced lcms - see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=538114 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=538114).
It's still a complete mystery as to why they want to maintain their own version of the wheel, rather than contributing fixes and improvements to lcms.
(These may be of interest too - http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Firefox-qcms-vs-lcms-vs-Argyll-imdi (http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Firefox-qcms-vs-lcms-vs-Argyll-imdi)
and http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Firefox-qcms-vs-lcms-20-vs-Argyll-imdi (http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Firefox-qcms-vs-lcms-20-vs-Argyll-imdi) )
-
The AdobeRGB printed on sRGB of course had duller colors, as one would expect.
The AdobeRGB is the choice IF you have the equipment to express it.
You and Will don't understand cause and effect nor proper color management workflows. Let me try once again using photo analogies because I keep hearing I'm wrong because I'm not a professional photographer. Maybe this will make sense to you and Will. The statements below are as factually incorrect about photography, cause and effect for issues (wrong handling of the process) as you propose about the use of Adobe RGB (1998).
If you shoot hand-held with a 400mm lens at 1/5th of a second, the image will be blury (appear wrong) because of the rotation of the Earth.
If you use an Incident meter and place your hand over the dome while taking a reading, the exposure will be wrong because of the heat of your hand and it's effect on the electronics.
If you shoot Daylight balanced film indoors with Tungsten lighting, it will have an orange color cast because you likely wore a red shirt, or due to the reflection of your skin.
If you process E6 film in D76, you will get the wrong processing and color due to a lack of agitation.
Here is what you hoped to say and I hoped you understand.
If you send Adobe RGB to a print path that expects sRGB for conversion to the output color space, you'll get poor results.
Simple as that Will and Gary. Print path means whatever steps, (driver, handling), is used to send the data to the printer. Do you believe that an Epson inkjet is an RGB printer? Despite how all such subtractive printers work and the names of the inks? Guess what happens if you send CMYK data to the Epson driver. You got an ugly (wrong) print because that print path expects RGB data. That doesn't make the Epson an RGB printer nor is any of the devices you used an sRGB printer. You can take the same Epson, place another print path (ImagePrint that Will mentioned and I'm certain is embarrassing the fine people there), you CAN send CMYK data to that Epson. The Epson itself didn't all of a sudden become a CMYK instead of sRGB printer any more than using a different front end with a Frontier allows one to send something other than sRGB previously made it an sRGB printer. There is no such beast.
You got the bit about the two ends of the spectrum representing two color spaces wrong (they absolutely do not have the same colors). You got the bit about numbers wrong, Will was even worse saying the distance between pixels is whatever, farther apart or something. Hard to understand with all his rambling. Stating: The AdobeRGB is the choice IF you have the equipment to express it is as incorrect as any of the photo analogy misinformation posted above.
-
Beware - it uses a retarded, unmaintained color engine, so can't handle all ICC profile types.
Firefox is my go-to browser but I ran across some profiles recently that it would refuse to use.
- One was a stock profile for my Benq monitor (v2, stock from Benq, no errors in Profile Inspector).
- The other was the CX_Monitor_weird profile on the colorwiki (v2, only error is internal/external name mismatch).
Photoshop happily recognized both.
Perhaps some of the FF color engine deficiencies you are referring to could be the cause?
-
You and Will don't understand cause and effect nor proper color management workflows. Let me try once again using photo analogies because I keep hearing I'm wrong because I'm not a professional photographer. Maybe this will make sense to you and Will. The statements below are as factually incorrect about photography, cause and effect for issues (wrong handling of the process) as you propose about the use of Adobe RGB (1998).
Here is what you hoped to say and I hoped you understand.
If you send Adobe RGB to a print path that expects sRGB for conversion to the output color space, you'll get poor results.
Simple as that Will and Gary. Print path means whatever steps, (driver, handling), is used to send the data to the printer. Do you believe that an Epson inkjet is an RGB printer? Despite how all such subtractive printers work and the names of the inks? Guess what happens if you send CMYK data to the Epson driver. You got an ugly (wrong) print because that print path expects RGB data. That doesn't make the Epson an RGB printer nor is any of the devices you used an sRGB printer. You can take the same Epson, place another print path (ImagePrint that Will mentioned and I'm certain is embarrassing the fine people there), you CAN send CMYK data to that Epson. The Epson itself didn't all of a sudden become a CMYK instead of sRGB printer any more than using a different front end with a Frontier allows one to send something other than sRGB previously made it an sRGB printer. There is no such beast.
While awaiting the publication of Mr. Fong’s tests, I decided to conduct my own tests using the Fuji Frontier LP7700 printing on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. As the Digitaldog, Jeff Schewe, and other knowledgeable forum members have pointed out, the test image would have to possess a gamut larger than sRGB for the tests to be meaningful. Otherwise the results would be the same if proper color management is employed. I chose an image of some colorful flowers that was rendered into ProPhotoRGB. The gamut is considerably larger than sRGB and Adobe RGB.
I converted to sRGB, Adobe RGB, and the native space of the printer using the profile downloaded from Drycreek.com. I then uploaded the images to Costco. In one set, I requested that no adjustments be performed; another set was submitted for automatic adjustments. I ordered 4x6 inch prints. The results were indistinguishable between the auto adjusted prints and those with no adjustments.
Here is the image in sRGB for web viewing. There is some blocking up of the yellows in the center of the image and the petals of some of the red flowers on the right, but the image looked reasonably good on my profiled NEC PA241w.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-cLzzJmH/0/O/StillLife_sRGB.jpg)
The scanned images of the resulting prints are shown here. The areas where some of the highlights are blocked are circled.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-RjcpcFc/0/O/FujiFrontier001_Small.png)
The sRGB and Adobe RGB images are quite vivid, but the highlights in the yellows and reds are blocked up and show no detail. The blocked up highlights or the reds are outlined. As expected, the ProPhotoRGB image is less saturated and appears similar to the image with the Drycreek profile.
Colorthink plots of the image and color spaces helps clarify the situation. The colored solid is the sRGB gamut and the printer profile gamut is in white, but shows color from the overlying sRGB plot with reduced opacity to allow the printer profile plot to show through. The image colors are shown by the dots, and the high illuminance yellows as well as mid-illuminance reds are out of gamut for both spaces. The sRGB gamut is actually larger than that of the printer. Profile inspector shows that the gamut of the printer is 396,814 cubic ΔEs as shown. The sRGB gamut is 832,478. The printer can’t reproduce the high illuminance saturated colors. However, the shapes of the gamuts are different, and some areas of the printer gamut are outside of sRGB and these colors would be clipped when sending sRGB to the printer.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-jvxhKSH/0/O/ColorThinkImg2.png)
Here is the gamut of the printer:
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-fCxjQwV/0/O/InspectorCostco.png)
From this test, I conclude that sending sRGB images to this printer can lead to blocked highlights when the gamut of the image exceeds that of the printer. With most shots, this wouldn’t occur, but occurs frequently when dealing with colorful flowers. In such cased, one should render into ProPhotoRGB and convert to the printer space. Perceptual rendering could be tried (it is not available with sRGB unless one is using the ver 4 profile as Jeff described. Sending a ProPhotoRGB image to the printer actually gives a better result! In this case, the soft proof accurately depicted the image with the printer profile. The colors are more muted, but one could edit the image to increase saturation until the highlights become unacceptably blocked up. In my experience, it is often best to allow some clipping as long as important tonal gradations are not lost.
My conclusions:
• The Frontier is not one of Mr. Fong’s sRGB printers.
• sRGB is not the optimal space in which to send images to this printer.
• One should use the supplied profile and edit with soft proofing to obtain optimal color. ProPhotoRGB is the preferred working space.
Comments on this post are welcome for my benefit and that of others who are not color management experts.
Bill
ps
This post was modified to add a missing image of the scanned photos. 5:00 pm CDT, August 27
-
Can't see any of your images Bill.
As the Digitaldog, Jeff Schewe, and other knowledgeable forum members have pointed out, the test image would have to possess a gamut larger than sRGB for the tests to be meaningful.
I want to be as fair to Gary as possible in context of his tests which we haven't seen and the target he said he'd use. After watching his video again last night to quote is mangling of the topic, I noticed he used the ColorChecker SG. I have to wonder if that's the target he is using for his new video, not as he describes, the ColorChecker (24 patch) which as pointed out, only has one color outside sRGB. That target would be totally inappropriate for the tests he did. Again, to be fair to Gary, the SG would be a better target than the 24 patch ColorChecker but I also think the tests would still be flawed and better had he used real world subjects as part of the test. Much like I'm going to assume you used (when I can see the images ;D)
I suppose until we see the video, we can only guess, based on Gary's 'quick and dirty' language (he's consistent) that the ColorChecker SG instead of the ColorChecker was used. It illustrates again how being less than accurate in discussing this complex subject is risky.
-
Update, I now see the images Bill.
Curious what rendering intent was used for the print output color space? Did you even have a choice?
-
That's a really good example of the problems and solutions. One image that didn't show up inline in your post that really demonstrates the difficulty is the last one with the four scans: http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-RjcpcFc
Also, it would be interesting to see the original proPhotoRGB image itself. It would also be interesting to see what happens if you shot it in sRGB as a jpeg — do the camera's internal conversions handle the clipped colors more gracefully than the colorimetric conversions?
-
I've just post a status, tagged Tom P Ashe, Katrin Eismann and X-Rite Photo to see if I can get any responses of "Is Will Crockett a real Coloratti?". Hope I can get an answer by X-Rite representative.
Aaron
-
• sRGB is not the optimal space in which to send images to this printer.
With the exception of a print path that demands sRGB for convention to the output color space, I have to wonder if sRGB would be optimal for ANY printer.
If Gary were able to conduct such tests to uncover this, that would be an interesting data point.
-
With the exception of a print path that demands sRGB for convention to the output color space, I have to wonder if sRGB would be optimal for ANY printer.
If Gary were able to conduct such tests to uncover this, that would be an interesting data point.
This test recalled my memories. Back in the day when we were in school, we have done a similar test with Adorama when they were starting their printing business. I kind of remembered we have sent sRGB, aRGB and an image converted into their printer profile. At the end, all I remember is the one with their profile came to the winning position, the whole class agreed with that. And the instructor was kind of agreed that but he also comment the software of their machine is not quite logical when it comes to color management. But he also said, well, as long as you get the good print, and you don't have to invest hundred thousand dollars to buy a machine, spending a few bulks to know how to get a decent one, why not. Not everyone is doing correctly, even you think they are, sometimes.
-
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-cLzzJmH/0/O/StillLife_sRGB.jpg)
Wow Bill that's a great example!
Flowers are some of the best gamut stress-test, nowadays when I go out and observe them I tend to think: Oh wow this one is way out of sRGB ;D
(And snap a picture in RAW for quality control purposes)
I suppose some flowers can be not only out of sRGB or Adobe RGB coverage but also out of some camera sensors gamuts.
But even in the later case, increasing saturation in editing (like in Lighroom) can produce colors going very far.
Theoretical images, generated can do the trick just as well but flowers are rather more convincing as they're right here in nature and part of many pics.
By the way two questions:
1/
Bill, you are using your scanner to evaluate the print: How wide is your scanner's color space?
2/
Same thing for camera: Did someone already published the measured gamut of today's digital camera sensors?
I have this little project idea for a few months, I wonder if anyone would be interested seeing that.
-
Same thing for camera: Did someone already published the measured gamut of today's digital camera sensors?
I have this little project idea for a few months, I wonder if anyone would be interested seeing that.
It terms of gamut discussed over these pages, that's going to be really difficult to pin down.
Check out Wikipedia's article on "CIE 1931 color space"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space> > and also the "color space" article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space >
Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible. This has been discussed in these parts in the past.
Update: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=22471.200
-
It terms of gamut discussed over these pages, that's going to be really difficult to pin down.
Check out Wikipedia's article on "CIE 1931 color space"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space> > and also the "color space" article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space >
Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible. This has been discussed in these parts in the past.
Recently I've been writing routines (matrix solvers) that generate 3x3 matrices for DNG ColorMatrix and ForwardMatrix under two illuminants (usually A and D65)
Both (or their inverse) then allow to convert from sensor RGB to XYZ.
DNG ColorMatrix does the white balance at the same time, and ForwardMatrix works on already white-balanced RGB sensor values.
I'll only be sure once/if I succeed, but the idea seems likely to be possible at first thought.
If you're telling me it's not possible I'm gonna have to try ;)
Edit: thanks Andrew for the link, ha! all the cool stuff has already been discussed in this forum.
-
Both (or their inverse) then allow to convert from sensor RGB to XYZ.
If you're telling me it's not possible I'm gonna have to try ;)
I'm not telling you, I'm reporting what a number of other's such as Thomas Knoll, Eric Walowit have said and the important item expressed was: Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space, and hasn't that happened above?
Update. After that long set of posts about 'does raw have a color space', here's my copy and paste based on what I think I understand from Thomas, Eric, Chris Murray and Jack Holm:
Here’s my copy and paste with respect to cameras based on a number of conversations with Eric Walowit and Jack Holms, both on the ICC digital photo group and Thomas Knoll.
Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Cameras don’t have primaries, they have spectral sensitivities, and the difference is important because a camera can capture all sorts of different primaries. Two different primaries may be captured as the same values by a camera, and the same primary may be captured as two different values by a camera (if the spectral power distributions of the primaries are different). A camera has colors it can capture and encode as unique values compared to others, that are imaginary (not visible) to us. There are colors we can see, but the camera can't capture that are imaginary to it. Most of the colors the camera can "see" we can see as well. Yet some cameras can “see colors“ outside the spectral locus however every attempt is usually made to filter those out. Most important is the fact that cameras “see colors“ inside the spectral locus differently than humans. No shipping camera that I know of meets the Luther-Ives condition. This means that cameras exhibit significant observer metamerism with respect to humans. The camera color space differs from a more common working color space in that it does not have a unique one to one transform to and from CIE XYZ. This is because the camera has different color filters than the human eye, and thus "sees" colors differently. Any translation from camera color space to CIE XYZ space is therefore an approximation.
The point is that if you think of camera primaries you can come to many incorrect conclusions because cameras capture spectrally. On the other hand, displays create colors using primaries. Primaries are defined colorimetrically so any color space defined using primaries is colorimetric. Native (raw) camera color spaces are almost never colorimetric, and therefore cannot be defined using primaries. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even produce a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible.
Raw image data is in some native camera color space, but it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. The same thing could be said about a color film negative. Someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones. There are better and worse choices, but no single correct conversion (unless the “scene” you are photographing has only three independent colorants, like when we scan film).
Do raw files have a color space? Fundamentally, they do, but we or those handling this data in a converter may not know what that color space is. The image was recorded through a set of camera spectral sensitivities which defines the intrinsic colorimetric characteristics of the image. One simple way to think of this is that the image was recorded through a set of "primaries" and these primaries define the color space of the image.
If we had spectral sensitivities for the camera, that would make the job of mapping to CIE XYZ better and easier, but we'd still have decisions on what to do with the colors the camera encodes, that are imaginary to us.
-
I'm not telling you, I'm reporting what a number of other's such as Thomas Knoll, Eric Walowit have said and the important item expressed was: Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space, and hasn't that happened above?
Yes I was being silly.
Okay so if it hasn't been done and published before, I'll see if it can be done: it would be nice to be able to compare camera's sensor gamut.
Of course it will mostly be a curiosity as 3x3 matrices are not enough to map sensor data to exact color anyway, despite they're sufficient to convert RGB to XYZ and vice-versa.
(we would need cameras capturing the visible spectrum instead of RGB channel based on an defined spectral response for something closer to real colors under any illuminant)
-
Bill,
I think this image is not a good candidate to test sRGB vs >sRGB colour spaces on c-prints, there's to little blue-turquise-phtalogreen colors.
Fuji Crystal Archive (which is a very shitty paper) is not a good choice either. So or so the profile form Costco looks a little bit weird, which raises a question how it was made - my profile of Fuji CA from Noritsu QSS3701HD has 455k dE^3, and profiles of DP2 and Endura Supra are rather in >500k dE^3 territory.
Sad truth is that small format wet dry printer controllers are dirty little bastards, so without knowing what the operator is really doing such tests are not really useful...
-
So or so the profile form Costco looks a little bit weird, which raises a question how it was made - my profile of Fuji CA from QSS3701HD has 455k dE^3, and profiles of DP2 and Endura Supra are rather in >500k dE^3 territory.
I'll let Bill answer the specifics but if it came from here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com, Ethan knows what he's doing IMHO.
-
I'll let Bill answer the specifics but if it came from here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com, Ethan knows what he's doing IMHO.
I know very well that Ethan knows what he's doing, but maybe he couldn't do what he would like to do in this case ;) (just a wild guess)
-
I know very well that Ethan knows what he's doing, but maybe he couldn't do what he would like to do in this case ;) (just a wild guess)
It's possible and I agree, this probably isn't the best, consistent and potentially well run device to do such tests. And considering Gary said something about a 'pro lab with an inkjet printer', I'd be more comfortable using such a device for this kind of test. Bet the color gamut is a lot larger too.
-
Update, I now see the images Bill.
Curious what rendering intent was used for the print output color space? Did you even have a choice?
For the matrix based conversions, relative colorimetric was used since that is the only choice. I also used RC with the custom profile. The colors were so far out of gamut that perceptual did not make much difference. BTW, I modified my original post to add the scanned photos, which were inadvertently omitted in the original post.
Bill
-
Wow Bill that's a great example!
Flowers are some of the best gamut stress-test, nowadays when I go out and observe them I tend to think: Oh wow this one is way out of sRGB ;D
(And snap a picture in RAW for quality control purposes)
I suppose some flowers can be not only out of sRGB or Adobe RGB coverage but also out of some camera sensors gamuts.
But even in the later case, increasing saturation in editing (like in Lighroom) can produce colors going very far.
Theoretical images, generated can do the trick just as well but flowers are rather more convincing as they're right here in nature and part of many pics.
By the way two questions:
1/
Bill, you are using your scanner to evaluate the print: How wide is your scanner's color sp
2/
Same thing for camera: Did someone already published the measured gamut of today's digital camera sensors?
I have this little project idea for a few months, I wonder if anyone would be interested seeing that.
I don't really know the gamut of the scanner. Strictly speaking it does not have a gamut, since it will output something for whatever is placed on it. The same is true for the camera. It is a low end Epson and the scans look a bit dull compared to the prints, which I evaluated visually. I added the scanned image to my original post. It did not make it into the original post.
The camera was the Nikon D800e with the raw rendered by ACR into ProPhoto with no clipping. The raw file has a very wide color range.
Bill
-
For the matrix based conversions, relative colorimetric was used since that is the only choice. I also used RC with the custom profile. The colors were so far out of gamut that perceptual did not make much difference. BTW, I modified my original post to add the scanned photos, which were inadvertently omitted in the original post.
Bill
There's no choice when you're converting to matrix profile, but when you're converting from matrix profile to LUT profile, then of course you have a choice.
-
Bill,
I think this image is not a good candidate to test sRGB vs >sRGB colour spaces on c-prints, there's to little blue-turquise-phtalogreen colors.
Fuji Crystal Archive (which is a very shitty paper) is not a good choice either. So or so the profile form Costco looks a little bit weird, which raises a question how it was made - my profile of Fuji CA from Noritsu QSS3701HD has 455k dE^3, and profiles of DP2 and Endura Supra are rather in >500k dE^3 territory.
Sad truth is that small format wet dry printer controllers are dirty little bastards, so without knowing what the operator is really doing such tests are not really useful...
Thanks for your comments. I'm not very expert in these matters and merely selected an image with vivid colors. I could try other other images, but I think that it would demonstrate what we already know: sRGB is not the best space in which to send images to this printer. However, one can get passable results with sRGB for noncritical family photos, etc., and the price is quite reasonable. For my more critical work, I print with my Epson 3880 and am happy with the results.
Bill
-
I know very well that Ethan knows what he's doing, but maybe he couldn't do what he would like to do in this case ;) (just a wild guess)
Yes, I downloaded the profile from Drycreek.com
Bill
-
Thanks for your comments. I'm not very expert in these matters and merely selected an image with vivid colors. I could try other other images, but I think that it would demonstrate what we already know: sRGB is not the best space in which to send images to this printer.
I think the work you did was a superb demonstration dismissing much of what Will and Gary have been preaching which is the crux of this thread. It illustrates a number of data points that one would hope Will and Gary would examine and comment on, namely:
1. Using sRGB to their so called 'sRGB printer' doesn't produce optimal results. Even Gary admitted this from his prints!
2. Using a real world image with saturated colors is more effective in evaluating the output than using a target. Consider Bill's notes on the detail seen in saturated colors on the print. We'd not see this if the image was a target who's surface is a rather smooth color.
3. Bill used an outside lab and even placed the orders with different parameters, so his analysis is based on real rubber hitting the road.
Hopefully Gary and/or Will can examine just this one test and see that what many have been stating about RGB working space choices for output to print play a role and as I said on his site, sRGB is never the right answer for the best print output (unless again, you are forced by some lab that is rather cluless about color management to send them sRGB).
Further:
Strictly speaking it does not have a gamut, since it will output something for whatever is placed on it.
Exactly. With a scanner, the target (film or a print) has a gamut, and ideally matches or exceeds what we'll scan. Much more difficult with a digital camera. Over the years, we've seen companies attempt to design differing targets, Gary's SG comes to mind. GretagMacbeth wanted a camera target that had a wider gamut so they updated the original with glossy, saturated patches which wrecked havoc on the profiling software if there was any reflections on a patch. Then they produced a 3rd generation target, the DC with no glossy patches but with a smaller gamut as a result.
-
One other thing to add to this debate.
Even if one is using an external photo lab to make one's prints there is still NEVER a reason to restrict oneself to sending images tagged with sRGB.
Choice allows one to to choose not to use labs that insist on sRGB-tagged images and that do not use a colour-managed workflow.
There is NEVER a good reason to arbitrarily restrict the potential colour gamut of printer output.
Tony Jay
-
Even if one is using an external photo lab to make one's prints there is still NEVER a reason to restrict oneself to sending images tagged with sRGB.
But there is, and it's Gary's point, which if he avoided his explanation would be pretty sound for a certain percentage of the camera-owning public. The reason to restrict yourself to sending sRGB is that you are my grandmother. She's going to pull images right off her card and send them to her friends — probably as full-res 12MB attachments unless some friendly email client fixes for her. This is the same way she is going to order prints, too. She's not going to buy photoshop, or download dry creek profiles, or process raw images, she's certainly not going to contemplate the difference between a relative and perceptual rendering intent. She is why we have sRGB jpegs and they're perfect for her. When she hands me her camera and asks me to set it up, it's getting set for sRGB jpegs in P mode — at least until you can be reasonably sure that her lab will be color managed.
The problem, other than Gary's technical explanation, is that presumably if you're watching a video on youtube about photography, you have a greater interest in the details than my grandmother and you are hoping to move beyond her level of skill. If that's the case then maybe a better, more complete explanation is in order that tells the whole story correctly. Otherwise, Andrew's 30 second explanation is all you need.
-
That's a really good example of the problems and solutions. One image that didn't show up inline in your post that really demonstrates the difficulty is the last one with the four scans: http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Costco-Gamut/i-RjcpcFc
Also, it would be interesting to see the original proPhotoRGB image itself. It would also be interesting to see what happens if you shot it in sRGB as a jpeg — do the camera's internal conversions handle the clipped colors more gracefully than the colorimetric conversions?
Mark,
The original ProPhoto image was obtained from a focus stack of several raw files rendered into 16 bit ProPhotoRGB. There is slight clipping in the red channel even in ProPhotoRGB and the image was admittedly over-processed. However the print on my Epson 3880 gave highly saturated colors with no notable blocking up of the highlights. Here is a link to the original TIFF:
http://adobe.ly/1nFgN4C
And here is a link to one of the NEFs. There is no clipping of the raw channels.
NEF:
http://adobe.ly/1vnZ35T
The setup is long gone and it is not possible to re-shoot it. One could process the NEF in the latest Nikon raw processing software (Capture NX 2), which reportedly duplicates the internal camera JPEG processing. I don't have that software, but anyone who has it can give it a try. Anyone is given permission to use the images for further testing.
Bill
-
But there is, and it's Gary's point, which if he avoided his explanation would be pretty sound for a certain percentage of the camera-owning public. The reason to restrict yourself to sending sRGB is that you are my grandmother. She's going to pull images right off her card and send them to her friends — probably as full-res 12MB attachments unless some friendly email client fixes for her. This is the same way she is going to order prints, too. She's not going to buy photoshop, or download dry creek profiles, or process raw images, she's certainly not going to contemplate the difference between a relative and perceptual rendering intent. She is why we have sRGB jpegs and they're perfect for her. When she hands me her camera and asks me to set it up, it's getting set for sRGB jpegs in P mode — at least until you can be reasonably sure that her lab will be color managed.
The problem, other than Gary's technical explanation, is that presumably if you're watching a video on youtube about photography, you have a greater interest in the details than my grandmother and you are hoping to move beyond her level of skill. If that's the case then maybe a better, more complete explanation is in order that tells the whole story correctly. Otherwise, Andrew's 30 second explanation is all you need.
I fully accept that may happen - by choice.
However, taking Gary Fong's explanation at face value it would appear that one has no choice.
Obviously that is nonsense and the point of my post - and it still stands - is that there is no reason to arbitrarily restrict the gamut of printer output.
Tony Jay
-
...Even if one is using an external photo lab to make one's prints there is still NEVER a reason to restrict oneself to sending images tagged with sRGB.
Choice allows one to to choose not to use labs that insist on sRGB-tagged images and that do not use a colour-managed workflow.
There is NEVER a good reason to arbitrarily restrict the potential colour gamut of printer output.
NEVER say never, Tony ;)
I send my files for 20x30 canvas in sRGB because my print lab says so. If any of you pro-choice guys would be willing to prove your point and bankroll me to switch to a real pro lab, that charges 2-3 times more, hey, I would be eternally grateful.
P.S. And no, I am not Mark's grandmother ;)
-
NEVER say never, Tony ;)
I send my files for 20x30 canvas in sRGB because my print lab says so. If any of you pro-choice guys would be willing to prove your point and bankroll me to switch to a real pro lab, that charges 2-3 times more, hey, I would be eternally grateful.
What lab would that be and what price are you paying (if you're going to ask us to find an alternative)?
That you are forced to use an inferior working space to convert to the output space is (again) justification for the mistakes Gary and Will have spoken? Don't you want to work with a color space that has more distance between pixels?
-
What lab would that be and what price are you paying (if you're going to ask us to find an alternative)?...
CG Pro Prints, $39.99 for a 20x30 canvas with finished back.
-
Hi everybody.
I've emailed Jeff at x-rite to address Andrew Rodney's claims that Will Crockett is a liar about being an x-rite coloritti. We have screen captured and saved all of Andrew Rodney's comments here and on the YouTube video where he says that Will Crockett is not an X-rite coloritti, and that Mr. Crockett may be lying.
Having spoken to Will, the reason he's not on the web page is because Mr. Rodney is on the same page, and he didn't want to appear on the same page.
I will let you know what Jeff says.
Gary Fong
-
NEVER say never, Tony ;)
I send my files for 20x30 canvas in sRGB because my print lab says so. If any of you pro-choice guys would be willing to prove your point and bankroll me to switch to a real pro lab, that charges 2-3 times more, hey, I would be eternally grateful.
P.S. And no, I am not Mark's grandmother ;)
I accept that this forum is something akin to a group of commercial lawyers scrutinising a contract however if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am using the term 'arbitrarily'.
I bet you, pounds on pennies, that you do not use Gary Fong's flat earth approach to 'non-colour management' and that the decision you have made has nothing to with the hopelessly scrambled non-logic underpinning Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output.
In other words - were you to explain your rationale it might actually make sense! :D
Tony Jay
-
... Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output...
Tony, in fairness to Mr. Fong, he clearly stated numerous times that if you have access to devices capable of handling Adobe RGB to use it by all means.
-
Tony, in fairness to Mr. Fong, he clearly stated numerous times that if you have access to devices capable of handling Adobe RGB to use it by all means.
He is not talking about the choice of output colourspace but rather to capture in sRGB and then use sRGB right through one's workflow on the ridiculous assumption that if your monitor is incapable of displaying the gamut potentially captured by the camera then one should not even go there but restrict oneself to sRGB.
I use sRGB as an output colourspace all the time - just not for nonsense non-logical reasons that Gary does.
Otherwise I prefer to work in as large a colourspace as I can - ProPhotoRGB.
The fact that no monitor or printer in existence today can either display or print the gamut of ProPhotoRGB is neither here nor there.
Knowledge is power.
However Gary Fong has taken a deliberate course of obfuscation trying to keep his intended audience ignorant of facts that might allow them to make decisions based on appropriate knowledge rather than the hopeless non-logic that he is shovelling.
Just as Andrew Rodney mentioned: shooting handheld with a 400 mm f2.8 will most often result in hopelessly blurred images - ascribing the result to the rotation of the earth is the dippy part.
Gary Fong is telling us that the result of our blurred images is the earth's rotation.
According to Gary Fong's logic no-one should ever use ProPhotoRGB because no hardware device can 'handle' it.
Tony Jay
-
Tony, I agree to disagree. Do not know about you.
-
He is not talking about the choice of output colourspace but rather to capture in sRGB and then use sRGB right through one's workflow on the ridiculous assumption that if your monitor is incapable of displaying the gamut potentially captured by the camera then one should not even go there but restrict oneself to sRGB.
Yes, that's how I read it too, funny how Slobodan seems to miss that critical part of this thread and attempts to come to his defence.
I use sRGB as an output colourspace all the time - just not for nonsense non-logical reasons that Gary does.
Me too (and many others here). NO one is disputing the need for that color space. I don't think anyone is saying there is a perfect or ideal working space (or there would only be one).
Slobodan continues to miss the point of why this tread was created in the first place, the silly, technically incorrect video Gary (and now Will) have inflicted on new users or those that only know a little less about color, color management and printing then they do! That's why the topic title is New color management stand up comic, they are so wrong about so many items I assumed it was a bad joke.
-
...funny how Slobodan seems to miss that critical part...
I did not miss it, I support it. That is, the part: "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB... otherwise, if you know what you are doing, i.e., have devices that can exploit it and know how to convert, go ahead and use Adobe RGB - or even better, wider color space like ProPhoto RGB."
-
I did not miss it, I support it. That is, the part: "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB... otherwise, if you know what you are doing, i.e., have devices that can exploit it and know how to convert, go ahead and use Adobe RGB."
You missed it again! The message has merit, the way the message was presented was technically wrong in multiple areas. I asked once, I'll ask YOU again: If two wrongs don't make a right, does half a dozen or more wrongs make a right? In correctly telling people "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB..." you present concepts about color theory and color management that are utterly wrong, how is that OK? It isn't. Why do you continue to act like it is OK to confuse and, OK, lie to the audience?
-
Firefox is my go-to browser but I ran across some profiles recently that it would refuse to use.
- One was a stock profile for my Benq monitor (v2, stock from Benq, no errors in Profile Inspector).
- The other was the CX_Monitor_weird profile on the colorwiki (v2, only error is internal/external name mismatch).
Looking through the bug database, it appears that there are some bug fixes and improvements being made to Firefox/qcms, albeit slowly. You could open a bug report and provide the profiles, if you can be bothered creating an account at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/).
From past experience, lcms's response time is a whole lot faster than Firefox in this regard though.
-
Perceptual rendering could be tried (it is not available with sRGB unless one is using the ver 4 profile as Jeff described.
It's perfectly possible to create a perceptual gamut mapped ICCV2 output profiles that map from sRGB to the printer gamut, and tools to do so are available (ArgyllCMS).
In fact, your tests are indicative of colorimetric mapping - if correct sRGB/AdobeRGB to printer perceptual gamut mapping was used (or better yet, image specific gamut mapping - essential in the case of creating a ProPhoto perceptual mapping), then the differences would be a lot more subtle - you wouldn't get the obvious "blocking up" effect.
-
You missed it again! The message has merit..
I did not miss it the first time, nor again. Some of you guys keep switching from disputing the explanation (which is ok to dispute) to disputing the message (which I happen to agree with, and even you) Tony apparently disputed the message itself.
-
I did not miss it the first time, nor again. Some of you guys keep switching from disputing the explanation (which is ok to dispute) to disputing the message (which I happen to agree with, and even you) Tony apparently disputed the message itself.
I've not read anything from Tony that supports that or that he is doing anything but disagreeing with the Fong flat earth color theories as he just expressed: Reply #425 on: Today at 08:12:28 PM » (Knowledge is power.)
I agree to disagree. Do not know about you.
-
Andrew, check my post #424 to see where I disagreed with Tony (that Gary "exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output").
-
Andrew, check my post #424 to see where I disagreed with Tony (that Gary "exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output").
You only partially quoted Tony @ Reply #424. I believe he (Tony) is spot on in terms of Gary's misinformation, again the crux of this discussion:
I bet you, pounds on pennies, that you do not use Gary Fong's flat earth approach to 'non-colour management' and that the decision you have made has nothing to with the hopelessly scrambled non-logic underpinning Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output.
But let's move on, this is getting OT, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible. This has been discussed in these parts in the past.
Hmm. I can't really agree that that explanation is useful or accurate.
The one thing cameras do is produce RGB values. It's interpreting that RGB value as a human color where things get interesting. They don't have a gamut in the sense that output devices have a gamut, because if a camera R/G or B value is saturated you can simply reduce the exposure to bring it into range. But cameras typically have spectral sensitivities that are not the same as human eyes, so their judgement of what is a metameric match or not is typically different to ours - there will be colors that we see as distinct that the camera sees as being the same, and visa-versa. There are an infinite number of ways of creating a profile that converts from the camera RGB to XYZ values, but given any particular one, there can be XYZ values that the camera can produce that are outside the spectrum locus, and XYZ values inside the spectrum locus that the camera cannot produce. The range of XYZ values that a camera + profile can produce does set a gamut limit, but it is just a consequence of the spectral sensitivity differences to the human eye, plus the choice of error tradeoffs made in the profile.
-
But there is, and it's Gary's point, which if he avoided his explanation would be pretty sound for a certain percentage of the camera-owning public. The reason to restrict yourself to sending sRGB is that you are my grandmother. She's going to pull images right off her card and send them to her friends — probably as full-res 12MB attachments unless some friendly email client fixes for her.
It's an input referred vs. output referred thing. There's nothing wrong with rendering an image into an output space like sRGB for display or printing. But if you want to keep the full gamut of what you've captured, you need to keep it in the camera RGB space or convert it to a wide gamut colorspace.
-
It's interpreting that RGB value as a human color where things get interesting. They don't have a gamut in the sense that output devices have a gamut, because if a camera R/G or B value is saturated you can simply reduce the exposure to bring it into range.
I agree, and believe I said that.
But cameras typically have spectral sensitivities that are not the same as human eyes, so their judgement of what is a metameric match or not is typically different to ours - there will be colors that we see as distinct that the camera sees as being the same, and visa-versa.
I agree, and believe I said that too (Luther-Ives condition), there are colors the camera 'see's' we don't and vise versa.
There are an infinite number of ways of creating a profile that converts from the camera RGB to XYZ values, but given any particular one, there can be XYZ values that the camera can produce that are outside the spectrum locus, and XYZ values inside the spectrum locus that the camera cannot produce.
I agree, and believe I said that. (The point is that if you think of camera primaries you can come to many incorrect conclusions because cameras capture spectrally. The camera color space differs from a more common working color space in that it does not have a unique one to one transform to and from CIE XYZ. This is because the camera has different color filters than the human eye, and thus "sees" colors differently. Any translation from camera color space to CIE XYZ space is therefore an approximation.)
The range of XYZ values that a camera + profile can produce does set a gamut limit, but it is just a consequence of the spectral sensitivity differences to the human eye, plus the choice of error tradeoffs made in the profile.
I agree, and believe I said that too (Raw image data is in some native camera color space, but it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. The same thing could be said about a color film negative. Someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones. There are better and worse choices, but no single correct conversion (unless the “scene” you are photographing has only three independent colorants, like when we scan film).)
I can't really agree that that explanation is useful or accurate.
That's the bit I don't understand, based on the comments above and below ;D
-
It's an input referred vs. output referred thing. There's nothing wrong with rendering an image into an output space like sRGB for display or printing. But if you want to keep the full gamut of what you've captured, you need to keep it in the camera RGB space or convert it to a wide gamut colorspace.
You're preaching to the choir with me. And to be fair, I haven't tried explaining it to grandma in terms of input/output referred spaces. I encourage you to drop by sometime and try this argument with her over green bean casserole.
-
I agree, and believe I said that.
Well, no you didn't - at least not in your first post here on the topic. Cameras don't get assigned an RGB space - their native output is three channels labelled R, G & B.
I agree that your second post on the topic sounds much more reasonable though.
-
You're preaching to the choir with me. And to be fair, I haven't tried explaining it to grandma in terms of input/output referred spaces. I encourage you to drop by sometime and try this argument with her over green bean casserole.
You're asking the camera to render the images into an output space when you select "sRGB" or "AdobeRGB" encoded output. They comply by rendering a "pleasing" result.
-
Well, no you didn't - at least not in your first post here on the topic. Cameras don't get assigned an RGB space - their native output is three channels labelled R, G & B.
I agree that your second post on the topic sounds much more reasonable though.
Terrific and AFAIK, I don't believe I ever wrote cameras are assigned an RGB space.
You're asking the camera to render the images into an output space when you select "sRGB" or "AdobeRGB" encoded output. They comply by rendering a "pleasing" result.
Absolutely agree.
-
Slobodan, if you go back to Gary Fong's video and watch the whole thing he undeniably exhorts people to use sRGB from capture onwards.
The fact that he has subsequently, under a lot of pressure, grudgingly admitted that AdobeRGB might be OK IF one has the hardware to handle it is also a gross distortion of any of the known facts of colour management.
Again, I stress that Gary is not talking about output colourspace assignment but using the same colourspace throughout one's workflow.
We all know, I hope, that an enormous amount of information is lost between the scene when shot and whatever output mode one chooses. Colour management is a key part, but not the whole story, of making sure that the output (whether it be a small 8-bit JPEG sitting on a webpage somewhere or a room-size print) can acceptably portray what was shot.
The details may differ depending on whether one is doing product photography versus a fine-art capture of a beautiful sunset but the principles never do.
So, unlike Gary's silly demonstration of changing his monitor's colourspace on the fly to "prove" that AdobeRGB cannot represent colours accurately, it is, in fact still possible to very adequately edit and softproof an image in Lightroom using ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace using a monitor whose gamut is similar to sRGB where the output gamut is determined by some printer/paper ICC profile.
Does a larger gamut monitor help?
Yes, it does but the bottom line is that the gamut of my printer exceeds even what my wide-gamut monitor can display (something approaching the gamut of AdobeRGB).
Yet I get excellent results.
However the logical conclusion, that is if you believe Gary Fong, is that what I do is complete bullshyte (apologies to Schewe).
Nonetheless, the reason that I get good results has absolutely nothing at all to do with the apparent ability of any bits of the hardware in that process from input to output to "handle" any particular colourspace, but rather everything to do with the rational application of colour management principles.
Is information lost along the way - You betcha! Plenty!
Colour management, however, allows me to make rational decisions every step of the way that allow a very close (obviously never identical) representation of what the camera was pointed at in the first place.
There is nothing new in what I have written - probably a large majority of people on this forum, particularly if they do their own printing, will recognise the outline there as very familiar.
Can a case be made for using sRGB from capture to output?
Absolutely.
Press photographers (are there any left these days?) will shoot JPEG's with sRGB tagged in-camera because they need their images posted on the news organisations website about five minutes after capture.
Does this make sense?
Definitely!
However, the reasons for doing this have absolutely nothing to do with the silly explanations of Gary Fong.
Also, as an aside, the suggestion has been made that it is OK for Gary Fong to promulgate his silly hypotheses because on some level he may have a point that a lot of people just want the simplest way to do something.
I want to take issue with that because no-one who is not interested in, or completely ignorant of, colour management will ever view that video clip because they will simply not look for it.
You just don't know what you don't know... (again, apologies to Schewe)
Instead those people are seeking that information specifically to get clarification on how to organise their workflow.
It is very easy, using sound colour management principles, to explain a rational workflow where one does use sRGB from capture to output. However it would be completely remiss not to mention the many and varied limitations of such an approach and also not to proffer other alternatives, explaining their various pro's and con's in turn.
I say again: Knowledge is power!
What Gary Fong has offered is not knowledge but complete FUD (again, apologies to Schewe!).
Tony Jay
-
So, Tony, just to be clear, you are now attacking both the message and the explanation?
-
I don't believe I ever wrote cameras are assigned an RGB space.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92767.msg756579#msg756579 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92767.msg756579#msg756579)
"Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space."
Perhaps not what you were intending, but it sure reads like you were saying that cameras don't produce RGB until their output gets mapped to an RGB space.
-
So, Tony, just to be clear, you are now attacking both the message and the explanation?
If I told you repeatedly that the reason you kept getting blurry shots shooting handheld with a 400mm f2.8 lens was because of the rotation of the earth and you could not shift me from ascribing the blurry shots to the rotation of the earth, does that in turn mean that the fact that you can come up with a very rational explanation for blurry images in that context that have nothing to do with the rotation of earth mean that you cannot differentiate the observation from the explanation?
Lets try a different tack:
If you were in West Africa right now how would you respond, knowing what you know about Ebola (perhaps not much, but enough anyhow), if I was an apparent bona fide doctor (I am by the way), if I was going around telling people in Sierra Leone, Liberia etc that their risk of acquiring Ebola was high (it is, in fact) but, the reason was that the gods were angry with them (this is false, however many of the people living in that region are animists and would find that explanation, no matter how erroneous, in fact, to be completely plausible).
You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola.
Would you really really defend my behaviour because I got the first part correct (about the fact the their risk of acquiring Ebola was high) when my explanation was so patently wrong and could lead to the deaths of many people?
It is true that Gary Fong is promulgating information about completely different issues, and it is true that one could also argue that these issue are not life-and-death.
Nonetheless the principle is just the same.
The fact that Gary Fong says use sRGB from input to output for a simple workflow and (possibly) more predictable possible results may stand with a lot of qualification; his explanation that using AdobeRGB with hardware that cannot "handle" AdobeRGB gives bad results is so demonstrably false made even more so by his unbelievably goofy demonstration that it absolutely has to be questioned.
The people who that video is aimed at are generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general, and colour management in particular, and so are not able to discriminate from the possibly correct proposal that sRGB may be an acceptable colourspace to use from capture to output from the completely false explanation that Gary gives as to why he recommends SRGB from capture to output.
If there is anyone who cannot separate observation from explanation it is Gary Fong!
So, In fact I am very surprised that you can draw this conclusion reading my post.
I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Tony Jay
-
Thanks GWGill and digitaldog for your follow up on why it was said a sensor (camera or scanner) don't have a gamut per say.
My instinctive understanding was that:
- you can convert from Sensor RGB to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix, for a determined illuminant
- conversely you can convert from XYZ to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix for a determined illuminant
- Sensor RGB are expressed in a finite amount of values (like 1024 for 10 bit) or within a range: 0.0 to 1.0 when converted to floating point.
The Sensor RGB to XYZ conversion is enough to get XYZ values for saturated red, saturated green, saturated blue.
Which gives primaries coordinates for a gamut, and also a color space with this gamut and a gamma of 1.
So there's that and it seems simple enough but as you point out, colors seen by the sensor depend on the spectral sensitivity of each channel, so it doesn't make as much sense.
As we know, as a result, a simple 3x3 matrix from RGB data to XYZ is sufficient to get somewhat resembling colors but not accurate one: additional correction is required (like implemented by HueSatMap in DNG specs)
I'll play with all this tomorrow and experiment. I'd like to see if we can at least compare camera's sensor like that.
It might give useful results or misleading instead, I'm curious to know and will share that in a new topic!
(and my apology for the off topic)
-
Slobodan, if you go back to Gary Fong's video and watch the whole thing he undeniably exhorts people to use sRGB from capture onwards.
The fact that he has subsequently, under a lot of pressure, grudgingly admitted that AdobeRGB might be OK IF one has the hardware to handle it
Tony Jay, where do you get this from? The video says it right from the beginning - Adobe is better if you have the hardware to handle it. Your heated comments came after it.
I'm under pressure? Do you think I'm under pressure from what you folks are saying? A handful of you Colorbators saying things like this? Do you think the handful of people here have any influence over anybody in the photography world except for the people on this board? Because you get dinner jackets to wear for a group photo showing how superior you are?
You heard Will Crockett say it - this debate should have been put to bed a long time ago, and it's the same few names over and over again who are in love with their workflow. I'm not calling the end to AdobeRGB, and I didn't say the print test would fail. I said I was going to do it, and only one of you predicted that the AdobeRGB workflow print would win and A/B contest. So, how confident are you if only one of you (not the most vocal of you all, by the way) could say for certain, that your workflow was going to win the contest?
You do know why this thread is useful to me right? I'm going to use this discussion in my sRGB vs AdobeRGB blog posts and videos. If I was under pressure, would I keep this thread going? I am collecting this stuff. It is going to be helpful when I hear from Jeff at X-Rite if it is true when Andrew Rodney proclaims that Will is a liar about his Coloritti relationship. He is not on the website because he doesn't want to appear on a website with Andrew Rodney on it. I didn't get the full context of that until I spent some time on the phone with Will.
If Andrew Rodney calls Will deceitful or misleading and is wrong he's going to have some problems soon. And he calls me spineless, if I were spineless, I wouldn't keep this thread going.
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast. He declined. If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.
I want to hear all about how wrong we are. That's why this thread keeps going. This dialog is useful to me.
-
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast. He declined. If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.
Simple question Gary.
Do you intend to correct the listed factual errors in videos you published earlier?
Starting with the rainbow stuff.
If you don't show any sign of effort on the quality and accuracy of your content, it's perfectly understandable Andrew doesn't trust you enough and declines you the ability to use his name and reputation, putting it in your hands.
Your channel, your video, your editing, your rules. Based on your messages here it's too likely you will misrepresent his words.
It's pretty clear you won't be taken seriously (hence the thread topic) until to do the necessary steps so it becomes possible to.
-
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.
Another question gary,
You invite Andrew for a video interview, but at the same time you delete some his most useful comments on your youtube video.
Please explain.
-
You heard Will Crockett say it - this debate should have been put to bed a long time ago, and it's the same few names over and over again who are in love with their workflow.
There's no debate about which color space to use Gary! There is a long list of fallacies both you and Will have provided and there are pages and pages here describing them. This is about misinformation in an aim to teach new users basic color management. Come on, Distance between pixels?
You do know why this thread is useful to me right? I'm going to use this discussion in my sRGB vs AdobeRGB blog posts and videos.
IF you present the content with proper terminology, analogies, language, great. I'm all for that. So far, in the three video's you have on your site dedicated on the subject, you have failed to do that. He is not on the website because he doesn't want to appear on a website with Andrew Rodney on it.
Fine, whatever. You admit that no where on X-rite's site is there any indication of Will being in the program right? Odd isn't it?
If Andrew Rodney calls Will deceitful or misleading and is wrong he's going to have some problems soon.
The three videos on this subject, including the last one done by Will is misleading, flat out technically wrong and could be considered by some deceitful.
And he calls me spineless, if I were spineless, I wouldn't keep this thread going.
You censored posts to kill any peer review. Posts that had language which initially shows how some, myself included, tried to aid you. The spineless comment was not appropriate, I apologize. I hate censorship by those that do so solely to hide their ignorance which is exactly what you did. All while leaving YOUR ranting on my YouTube page up for all to see!
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast. He declined.
I told you early on that I would have no part in promoting your flat earth theories on color management. IF you want to go on record here as to what you propose for an interview, I'll consider it IF the aim is proper education of this subject to the audience you plan to offer it to.
If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are. I want to hear all about how wrong we are.That's why this thread keeps going. This dialog is useful to me.
I and other's have done this for the last 23 pages! You don't appear to understand any more on page 23 than you did when you first appeared. So what's the point of doing an interview? What hasn't been said here in terms of the mistakes on your video's that needs to be repeated so you can ignore them? You asked about testing procedures for your print test, got advise and dismissed it. Your track record here indicates you have no interest in learning this subject let alone teaching it to others. Can you blame me for wondering what your motives are?
-
Tell you what Gary. Pull the last two (or all three) ridiculously incorrect video's on sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998). I promise to do an interview. I promise to help script and aid in any way, a video you can then do on the subject that correctly describes what I think you wanted to illustrate. I'll help promote it.
Doing so will illustrate that you really do care about feeding proper information to new and if you want to go father, advanced users.
If as you say, I want to hear all about how wrong we are, I'll go out of my way to make sure, to the best of my abilities and understanding of this topic, you do and back you up 1000%. Deal?
You have a big audience, I want them to get the right info, that's the bottom line.
-
Tony Jay, where do you get this from? The video says it right from the beginning - Adobe is better if you have the hardware to handle it. Your heated comments came after it.
What hardware Gary??
How many monitors can display AdobeRGB?
Even my high-end NEC Spectraview is only advertised to cover 96% of the gamut of AdobeRGB (if memory serves).
Some slightly newer models also advertise up to 99% of the AdobeRGB colourspace - but lets not quibble over numbers right - 99% is not 100%.
My Epson Pro 7900 is a bit of a strange beast that can print colours that AdobeRGB does not contain in its gamut but at the same time cannot print some colours that are within AdobeRGB's gamut.
Adobe Lightroom only allows one to use ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace - there is no monitor and no printer currently on this earth than can hope to either display or print its gamut.
So, please tell me I am wrong here: Since by your contention that none of the key hardware components that I am using "handle" AdobeRGB (and none do in their entirety) then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that I have to use sRGB (from my camera onwards) in my imaging workflow?
Hmm... and of course that makes Adobe complete dolts in releasing Lightroom on us poor unsuspecting photographers where the only working colourspace available for our use is ProPhotoRGB. What knuckleheads they must be.
And, oh yes, they also recommend using ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace in Photoshop for most photographic applications.
God, what twits they are.
So, please list the magical pieces of hardware that will replace my current, obviously hopelessly deficient, crop of junk so that I can not only use AdobeRGB in my workflow but also ProPhotoRGB. Please Gary, please.
Tony Jay
-
digitaldog, good points on your previous message (the long answer with quotes).
However reading it made me realize how much Gary is trolling us.
Intentionally or not I don't know, but he's actually a very good troll.
Nice of you to keep the window open for the good cause (get the erroneous stuff offline).
Too bad that in the process you're feeding the troll tho.
-
Tony, what's gotten into you? I remember you as a sensible, logical person and a good man. Why this gross distortion of logic? Why all these non sequiturs? Nothing in your last post has anything to do with what Gary said about "adobe capable hardware."
-
Tony, what's gotten into you? I remember you as a sensible, logical person and a good man. Why this gross distortion of logic? Why all these non sequiturs? Nothing in your last post has anything to do with what Gary said about "adobe capable hardware."
Come on Slobodan, what the hell does "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" mean?
How is that I print from Lightroom with an image that is in the ProPhotoRGB working space to a printer with a much smaller gamut that only, very roughly, approximates the AdobeRGB colourspace?
According to the logic Gary is presenting everything that I do is completely illogical.
I am editing images using a colourspace that my monitor cannot hope to display and printing colours with a printer that my monitor cannot reproduce either.
In Gary's world this is madness - in my world this is logical colour management that works.
There is no such animal as "AdobeRGB-capable hardware."
And how does he explain Adobe's choice to release Lightroom with no choice about working colourspace - ProPhotoRGB only.
Again according to the logic he presents this is complete madness.
Tony Jay
edit: Just to be clear Slobodan - I am upset and frustrated, but not with you. This guy (Gary) is genuinely going around preaching that the world is flat. It should just be funny but he is making money out of this (bad enough) but also people are going to be burned (the real danger) unless they are warned.
-
Lets try a different tack:
If you were in West Africa right now how would you respond, knowing what you know about Ebola (perhaps not much, but enough anyhow), if I was an apparent bona fide doctor (I am by the way), if I was going around telling people in Sierra Leone, Liberia etc that their risk of acquiring Ebola was high (it is, in fact) but, the reason was that the gods were angry with them (this is false, however many of the people living in that region are animists and would find that explanation, no matter how erroneous, in fact, to be completely plausible).
You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola.
Would you really really defend my behaviour because I got the first part correct (about the fact the their risk of acquiring Ebola was high) when my explanation was so patently wrong and could lead to the deaths of many people?
Tony Jay
Please understand that I agree with all you have written, but this analogy is flawed, or at least incomplete. May I suggest:
This hypothetical doctor told people that, given the high risk of acquiring Ebola (a fact), the way to circumvent this risk was to avoid all contact with suspect individuals (a valid message). If this same doctor (feeling an irresistible need to further elaborate) went on to explain that transmission of the virus occurred via electromagnetic waves emanating from angry gods, and infection could be prevented by wearing a tin foil hat; then he would have made the same error as Mr. Fong. He should rightly be castigated for misinformation that places his audience in increased danger of contracting the disease.
-
but also people are going to be burned (the real danger) unless they are warned.
Who is going to get burned? And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings? Tony, are you mad because nobody knows who you are, or cares what you have to say, outside of this forum?
How does telling a photographer why their images all of a sudden look "dull" once they change that menu setting to AdobeRGB from sRGB do anything but benefit them- which was the point of this video? By your "warning" the world that AdobeRGB is better, are they served when (as I've proven) their images look worse when uploaded to web and shown on most web browsers? And again - who is going to listen to you, or all of this ridiculous puffery one-upsmanship you all are trying to do to look smart.
Sierra Leone? Ebola? Congratulations! You read a lot! Do you even realize how petty and silly you all look? And how do you not see that I am egging you on to make you post even more verbose things, to show what a self-important group of know-it-alls you try to be to each other?
-
And how do you not see that I am egging you on to make you post even more verbose things, to show what a self-important group of know-it-alls you try to be to each other?
Don't worry on that score, we already know that you are a not too well disguised troll.
Tony Jay
-
Who is going to get burned? And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings? Tony, are you mad because nobody knows who you are, or cares what you have to say, outside of this forum?
It's like you write stuff like that just so people can find more reason to despite you.
"Look at me I'm famous, and hahaha I'm laughing at you because you're not."
Oh boy..
-
How does telling a photographer why their images all of a sudden look "dull" once they change that menu setting to AdobeRGB from sRGB do anything but benefit them- which was the point of this video?
But you didn't tell them why. You made up a reason that has little if any basis in reality and when corrected turned to personal attacks. It's sad, Gary— a wasted opportunity to do something really useful for your audience.
-
Who is going to get burned? And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings? Tony, are you mad because nobody knows who you are, or cares what you have to say, outside of this forum? ...
...Do you even realize how petty and silly you all look? And how do you not see that I am egging you on to make you post even more verbose things, to show what a self-important group of know-it-alls you try to be to each other?
So then Gary you are officially declaring yourself a troll?
You are clearly stating that your purpose in joining this forum was nothing more than an attempt to provoke us is some way?
You clearly never had any other motive apart from the malicious?
Tony Jay
-
Gary,
Have you considered a career in politics? You're ver good at it! The way you manipulate the messages, selectively edit the comments, keep calm while exasperating everybody else is impressive, you already had some here apologizing to you and in the meantime you have not retracted about any of the nonsense about color management.
Regards
-
Hmm... and of course that makes Adobe complete dolts in releasing Lightroom on us poor unsuspecting photographers where the only working colourspace available for our use is ProPhotoRGB. What knuckleheads they must be.
In Capture One Pro 7 the working colour space is defined by the camera's ICC Profile (defined in the Base characteristics tool). For Leaf this is Leaf ProPhoto RGB, for example (see attached picture).
So this, by Gary's standards, probably makes the guys at Phase One as totally insane :o
But, remember, Gary wants you to shoot JPEG and not RAW, but this is for another thread / discussion, one would say. ;)
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one? The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts. His video was fantastic. He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular. His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography. All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos. I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere. So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons. They just want to take photos they love. Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae so that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share. I just see you all arguing with each other.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone. You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry. Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not. They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.
I manage people in groups. You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win. So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person. The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won! That has got to sting!
Here's another thought for you. You all know this group much better than I do. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology? Or would they hire people who are not, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".
"You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola." - you are SO smart for not talking normal.
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one? The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts. His video was fantastic. He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular. His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography. All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos. I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere. So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
Their goals in life are not to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D diagrams of gamut balloons. They just want to take photos they love. Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share about the ideal workflow. I just see you all arguing with each other.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone. You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", or words like "promulgating information" or photographers "generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry. Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not. They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.
I manage people in groups. You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win. So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person. The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won! That has got to sting!
Here's another thought for you. You all know this group much better than I do. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology? Or would they hire people who have answers without, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".
No comment, but suppressing a deep urge to laugh out loud.
Wait a minute...I smell goose cooking....
Tony Jay
-
Like many guys here I'm not a colour scientist like Graeme Gill or Andrew Rodney - I'm just a graphic designer, photographer and printer who learned colour management to avoid the waste of paper, and that's already far enough to realise you have virtually no idea of what you're talking about.
After a couple years of studies I had realised how difficult and complicated it is, and have a great respect for the people who are working in this challenging field.
The sad truth that an arrogant dabbler like you can't understand is that photography simply doesn't exist without colour science, and even an infinite number Crockett-like "colour experts" and "workflow lovers" wouldn't ever create even a simple camera (not to mention a printer).
You don't need to be a colour scientist to be a good photographer, but colour science can be useful if you want to achieve above average results - especially when making prints. Go read a book or two and maybe you'll finally get what's it all about.
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one? The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts. His video was fantastic. He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular. His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography. All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos. I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere. So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons. They just want to take photos they love. Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae so that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share. I just see you all arguing with each other.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone. You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry. Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not. They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.
I manage people in groups. You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win. So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person. The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won! That has got to sting!
Here's another thought for you. You all know this group much better than I do. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology? Or would they hire people who are not, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".
"You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola." - you are SO smart for not talking normal.
-
This guy is unbelievable.
Doesn't seem to be just a troll, he's genuinely delusional.
It's not funny anymore.
-
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
you are SO smart for not talking normal.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Tony's use of language.
Your lack of precision in language is a corner stone of the problem here.
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
So, should I shoot RAW or JPG? What's your opinion, Mr. Fong, on this topic?
-
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Tony's use of language.
Your lack of precision in language is a corner stone of the problem here.
Thanks for the support!
However, as far as Gary is concerned its pretty clear now we are completely wasting our time with him.
He has certainly slung some flaming arrows around today - some aimed specifically at me as you refer to, but he has very unwisely decided to tilt at the entire LuLa windmill.
I think it is entirely clear that he has no concept at all of who comprises the greater LuLa community and how many of them are not only industry pro's at the top of their game but also the very people that the industry turns to to develop new products whether it is camera equipment, software or other accessories. In other words exactly the kind of people he believes we are not and can't be.
It probably would not be an exaggeration to say that in toto almost no major company involved in digital photographic imaging and printing today does not lend an ear to at least one individual involved with LuLa.
As for me I probably don't have any street credibility as far as he is concerned but he has figured out that I am smart (about the only thing he appears to have got right in a while). As far as colour management goes I characterised myself as having a solid, and hopefully, still growing, grasp of colour management. Sadly, I think his attempts to belittle and dismiss me speak far more about him than about me.
As for the insults that he has thrown at the community as a whole belittling and dismissing everyone associating with LuLa - that may come back to bite him big time.
As for his credibility, apart from characterising himself with the best description of a troll that I have heard, he has also admitted that he has no grasp of colour management and cannot follow the point of our posts - apparently because we can't agree.
Strange, this thread has been almost unanimous in pointing out the flaws in his (non)understanding of colour management.
It is also very strange to be demanding apologies while shooting flaming arrows around as indiscriminately as he has done today.
I don't want to comment on his state of mind, someone has characterised him as delusional, although I could probably do a better job than almost anyone here at a lay diagnosis ( :D).
Rather, I think that what has transpired is sad, nothing to be glad about.
Nonetheless, one can only lead a horse to water...
Tony Jay
-
So, should I shoot RAW or JPG? What's your opinion, Mr. Fong, on this topic?
JPG of course! I tried to look at a RAW file and the image looked dark and greenish, very ugly. The JPG instead was colorful and bright
-
Hi,
Well said...
The way I work is that I use ProPhoto RGB until conversion is needed. I do my own printing up to A2, anything larger goes to a pro lab in Sweden, called Crimson. The lab has a service called prefix, half a price and fast turnaround time, but you are responsible for colour management. Works perfectly for me.
Best regards
Erik
Like many guys here I'm not a colour scientist like Graeme Gill or Andrew Rodney - I'm just a graphic designer, photographer and printer who learned colour management to avoid the waste of paper, and that's already far enough to realise you have virtually no idea of what you're talking about.
After a couple years of studies I had realised how difficult and complicated it is, and have a great respect for the people who are working in this challenging field.
The sad truth that an arrogant dabbler like you can't understand is that photography simply doesn't exist without colour science, and even an infinite number Crockett-like "colour experts" and "workflow lovers" wouldn't ever create even a simple camera (not to mention a printer).
You don't need to be a colour scientist to be a good photographer, but colour science can be useful if you want to achieve above average results - especially when making prints. Go read a book or two and maybe you'll finally get what's it all about.
-
"Interesting" thread.
But 98% of the heat here is being generated because the question "sRGB vs Adobe RGB" doesn't have a real answer - it's the color management equivalent of the lawyer asking "Do you still beat your wife - answer yes or no". (Think about it).
The more useful question is a color managed vs. non-color managed environment.
If you have a properly color managed environment end-to-end, color space is largely irrelevant. Just pick a space that's got a wide enough gamut to encompass whatever you're dealing with, and forget about it. And e.g., ProPhoto is wide enough for pretty much anything practical. Yes, there are edge cases where you can screw up if you do something strange - ProPhoto JPEGs aren't a real good idea, etc, but largely color space won't matter.
As soon as you are out of a properly color managed environment, then Mr. Fong's message (if not explanation) is exactly correct - sticking with sRGB is your best bet of a reasonable result.
And btw, "properly color managed environment" has little or nothing to do with hardware.
Sandy
-
Great posting, thanks!
BR Erik
"Interesting" thread.
But 98% of the heat here is being generated because the question "sRGB vs Adobe RGB" doesn't have a real answer - it's the color management equivalent of the lawyer asking "Do you still beat your wife - answer yes or no". (Think about it).
The more useful question is a color managed vs. non-color managed environment.
If you have a properly color managed environment end-to-end, color space is largely irrelevant. Just pick a space that's got a wide enough gamut to encompass whatever you're dealing with, and forget about it. And e.g., ProPhoto is wide enough for pretty much anything practical. Yes, there are edge cases where you can screw up if you do something strange - ProPhoto JPEGs aren't a real good idea, etc, but largely color space won't matter.
As soon as you are out a properly color managed environment, then Mr. Fong's message (if not explanation) is exactly correct - sticking with sRGB is your best bet of a reasonable result.
And btw, "properly color managed environment" has little or nothing to do with hardware.
Sandy
-
"Interesting" thread.
But 98% of the heat here is being generated because the question "sRGB vs Adobe RGB" doesn't have a real answer - it's the color management equivalent of the lawyer asking "Do you still beat your wife - answer yes or no". (Think about it).
The more useful question is a color managed vs. non-color managed environment.
Actually, Sandy the issue as far as nearly all here is concerned has NOTHING to do with sRGB vs AdobeRGB - the title of the thread notwithstanding.
As you suggest the real issue is really colour management.
And as you well know without colour management even the Gary Fong sRGB workflow approach will often only give mediocre results at best.
In fact one really needs to grasp a good deal about colour management to pull it off.
It is Gary Fong who believes that there is some controversy and debate in deciding which colourspace to use, not just as an output colourspace but a colourspace to use from capture to output.
Likewise he also believes, and made specific mention, of the fact that there is another big controversy in deciding whether to use JPEG or RAW.
Yet the place for each is very well known and understood and the debate and controversy exists only in his own head.
Tony Jay
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one? The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts. His video was fantastic. He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular. His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography. All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos. I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere. So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons. They just want to take photos they love. Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae so that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share. I just see you all arguing with each other.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone. You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry. Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not. They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.
I manage people in groups. You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win. So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person. The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won! That has got to sting!
Here's another thought for you. You all know this group much better than I do. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology? Or would they hire people who are not, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".
"You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola." - you are SO smart for not talking normal.
Surely one of the longest posts I have ever seen on this forum with the least amount of content :) ;)
-
JPG of course! I tried to look at a RAW file and the image looked dark and greenish, very ugly. The JPG instead was colorful and bright
Well, thank you Mr. Disilvestro ;) It seems though that I am out of luck because I am using a Mamiya 645 AFD III with the old 22 mpx Leaf Aptus 22 digital back that produces gorgeous images in .MOS format but it seems I cannot set it to JPG. It seems I can only define the compression, but not also the format (JPG or TIFF or RAW) neither the colour space (sRGB, Adobe RG, ProPhoto). Please see attached pic of the digital back's menu for camera settings.
So, Mr. Fong, am I completely and utterly doomed? Do I need to sell my old MF equipment and buy a Sony A6000 to set it to sRGB and JPG to make good pictures?
-
Surely one of the longest posts I have ever seen on this forum with the least amount of content :) ;)
Told you he was a very funny fellow.
He's PM me'd saying he's going to sue me. Hilarious. This is just getting funnier all the time.
-
Who is going to get burned? And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings?
According to Michale, Lula currently has more than 1.1 million unique readers each month; 3.5 million page views from some 50,000 people a day. This is a larger circulation that any print photographic magazine in the world and exceeded on the web only by some of the dedicated camera review sites.
That's who listens Gary.
Update Gary, as of seconds ago, this thread illustrating your flat earth color theories and rants has 5696 views. Not bad!
-
Hi,
Well said...
The way I work is that I use ProPhoto RGB until conversion is needed. I do my own printing up to A2, anything larger goes to a pro lab in Sweden, called Crimson. The lab has a service called prefix, half a price and fast turnaround time, but you are responsible for colour management. Works perfectly for me.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
That is what I do, too. This presupposes shooting in raw and processing the images in the proprietary camera maker software, ACR, Capture One, or LR. Indeed, in LR that workflow is built into the workflow for raw shooters. That said, there is a place for shooting in camera JPEGs. Fast paced photojournalism, sports photography, and high volume wedding photography are often mentioned. In these cases, it is essential to get the shot right in the camera and the pros shooting in these situations know how to do this, and don't need Mr. Fong's advice.
For amateurs shooting with P&S or camera phones, JPEG and sRGB is the usual situation and many of these users don't even know what sRGB or color management is, and they don't need Mr Fong either. With these highly automated cameras surprisingly good results can be obtained. The iPhone can even do panoramas.
I'm not sure who are Mr Fong's audience. Most of us on the forum are enthusiasts who are here to advance our skills and learn from the many highly knowledgeable forum members. Mr Fong's inflammatory posts and confrontational style have provoked some interesting discussion, but I think it is time to move on and I hope the sysop will close this thread down soon.
Bill
-
Mr Fong's inflammatory posts and confrontational style have provoked some interesting discussion, but I think it is time to move on and I hope the sysop will close this thread down soon.
Bill, as the originator of the post, I can lock it down. I'm somewhat concerned about doing this because:
- It appears as a form of censorship and that's what upset me most by Gary's actions, deleting posts on his YouTube site that showed how some were trying to help him and were rather polite despite his tone.
There have been some useful technical discussions that were sure to go over Gary's head that had nothing to do with the topic but were none the less useful additions.
I think giving Gary a platform to appear as one person put it, genuinely delusional, is proving him more rope to hang himself.
I'd hate to let Gary believe his behavior was the cause of closing the posts. He doesn't deserve the power.
If enough people feel locking the post is necessary, or if Chirs or Michael feel the need, so be it.
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one? The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts. His video was fantastic. He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular. His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography. All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos. I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere. So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons. They just want to take photos they love. Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae so that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share. I just see you all arguing with each other.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone. You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.
Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention. To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry. Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not. They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.
I manage people in groups. You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win. So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person. The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won! That has got to sting!
Here's another thought for you. You all know this group much better than I do. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology? Or would they hire people who are not, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".
"You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola." - you are SO smart for not talking normal.
OK, this is beyond the pale. Gary have you considered the possibility that the reason this group doesn't march in "lock step" on these matters is due to independent thinking and an honest desire and attempt to probe the boundaries of the digital medium and what might be achieved? And you think that's evidence that we don't know what we're talking about or "can't agree on anything?" If that's your honest opinion and you intend to use that opinion to discredit and ridicule the knowledge base available here - all to support your oversimple and inaccurate description of the facts on the ground - well, then whatever respect I had for you and your desire to be helpful to your target audience just went permanently out the window.
No one knows who I am. Yet, from what I've learned from the people on this site over the years, starting from knowing zero about color management, I'm now helping others understand and achieve really predictable results in their work, and we're making beautiful prints for them that push the boundaries of what is possible. Every single one of the small group that I assist started from zero also. And in this you're correct... they are not stupid. And because this is true, I don't think they deserve a stupid, oversimple and inaccurate explanation in order to encourage them to stay stupid and limit themselves to a workflow that will enable them to make "pretty pictures" rather than offer the possibility of something more, and encourage them to pursue it.
You have demonstrated through your absolute intransigence and arrogance that you deserve no more of my time.
Rand
-
If enough people feel locking the post is necessary, or if Chris or Michael feel the need, so be it.
FWIW, in general I'm not in favor of locking down threads, this one included. As you said, it also has 'positive' aspects, and it's up to the participants to increase the signal to noise ratio...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just for the record I think Andrew has explained his main issue with that video very well, in terms that everyone can understand. Well, almost everyone. And just for the record I agree with it all. I haven't said much in this thread, because it's all been said very well by others.
At this point I just have a question for Gary Fong, the obvious one:
Right in the beginning you claimed this was Andrew Rodney against the world. Now, some 5770 views later, and not one of them defending your theories on color management, do you still think that? Or could this possibly be Gary Fong against the world?
-
This guy is as dumb as a bang of hammers!
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB. I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
The debate between us (you, me and every single person expect Will) is you got your facts about color wrong. Then Will did. Simple as that.
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one?
You don't deserve one, just the opposite. The people who's posts you deleted who tried to correct you deserve an apology. Your audience who is being misled, misinformed, given less than half truths deserve an apology from you!Clearly you don't care about them, it's all about Fong.
The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use.
Useful to your marketing. If you really believed the feedback was useful how could you delete posts? That's called censorship Gary! It makes you look far worse than your totally confused understanding of color management.
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts.
MacDonalds is recognized as selling the highest number of burgers. Doesn't make them the best by a long shot. I don't care if Will has lectured in every country on the planet, he's still wrong about a lot of color management theory. Distance between pixels? No output device has a gamut volume than sRGB? And your now famous illustration of spectrum where you state:.…And the colors at either side of the rainbow are the same." ALL WRONG.
I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere.
You've told us all kinds of things that are wrong, here's yet another.
So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles: 1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway. You all just argue with each other.
Point of fact, nearly everyone here and many on your site prior to your censorship disagreed with you! That's another fact you simply can't recognize.
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons.
First, thanks for speaking for all typical photography enthusiast (out if your rear end), next it's Coloratti, you've illustrated you can't read or write very well, lastly 3D gamut balloons is as ridiculous and an uneducated statement as Will's now famous "distance between pixels" flop. The reason to keep the post open and allow you to write here is you get deeper and deeper into the hilarious color management comedy act you provide like no one else.
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
If getting you to waste your time providing comedy material for us to read keeps you from misleading other's with new video's, this has been a worthwhile effort!
This is not what helps the industry. Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry.
How will that dismiss the incorrect teachings on color you've provided for all to see? It only makes some suspect of you which again, if only a few see that,this has been a worthwhile effort!
Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not.
The only person who should feel stupid based on his writings about color is you sir.
-
The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use. How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
The analogies are out-and-out wrong and misleading, and your demonstration of what happens when you change profiles doesn't show what you say.
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts.
Name these experts that think he's good. I find that statement quite beyond belief.
His video was fantastic.
Not the one I saw. That one was ludicrous. Perhaps you could clarify which one was "fantastic" with a link?
I have businesses to run. This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
The people here - whether professional photographers or not - quite clearly understand the science of colour pretty well. What relevance is it that some are not professional photographers?
Conversely, you don't need to be an expert in colour science to be a great photographer just as you don't need to understand the biochemistry of digestion in order to eat, and you don't need to understand cell respiration in order to breath.
But however good a professional photographer you are, it's pretty silly to try to teach something you don't understand. This is the blind leading the blind, but worse - you're purporting to know something that you don't really know as well as you say. That is at best misleading.
I've read and heard many mistaken comments on colour science as it relates to photography, but the real foolishness would be to refuse to countentance the possibility of being wrong, despite a deluge of expert opinion saying so.
However great a professional photographer you are, please just consider the possibility that you might not know as much as you thought you did about colour management.
-
You will note in the description of the YouTube video...
Very good assessment, Mr. Fong, except your point 1).
This group is influential and a lot of people knows and cares about it, though probably not your audience. This group has a few elephants*, and a bunch of us, mice, who think that, when running along a herd of elephants, the earth shakes because of them too.
* i.e., people who write books on the subject or are generally knowledgeable about their field
-
Come on Slobodan, what the hell does "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" mean?...
That is a smart-ass comment, Tony, and you know it. What I wrote is a contextual SHORTHAND for: "any device, printer, lab, operator, screen, browser, etc. that is capable of treating files with Adobe RGB correctly, without screwing them up."
-
What I wrote is a contextual SHORTHAND for: "any device, printer, lab, operator, screen, browser, etc. that is capable of treating files with Adobe RGB correctly, without screwing them up."
Might I suggest a better term than "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" be something like:
Color management aware, iCC aware, color managed etc.
AdobeRGB-capable hardware is a new term I've never heard before this post. It doesn't make sense to me either. My MacBook display driven by an ICC aware application (Photoshop for example) treats Adobe RGB (1998) properly as does my NEC wide gamut display and neither are sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) devices but they can use that data within a color managed path. The only "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" possible would be some emissive display that follows the exact Adobe RGB (1998) specifications.
AdobeRGB-capable hardware is a 'term' much like Gary's incorrect account of an 'sRGB printer'. There is no such thing, a printer can't print or create sRGB so why call it that?
Color management is difficult enough that I don't think we need to create new terms that are ambiguous or not based on reality, like that 'sRGB printer' phrase. It's OK for Gary, he doesn't understand the topic and determined to confuse his audience. But you're in a different class Solbodan.
As I've said elsewhere, As the Chinese proverb says: The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name. The opposite of genius would be making up names like Gary has done, it serves no purpose.
-
Hi guys, I found this thread through a convoluted path of youtube videos (can't even remember what I started off watching, but I wound up watching Gary Fong's video that OP referenced).
I'm not a pro photographer and mainly share online, but occasionally I will print a favorite photo.
Will I go wrong if I shoot in JPG + RAW and use sRGB?
The idea being that:
1. JPG = for casual social media sharing requiring little if any processing; and video is mainly sRGB anyway right?
2. RAW = digital negative so can't I figure out the gamut later? Like if I have a favorite photo I want in black and white, I will have to go back to the RAW file anyway (if I shot it in color in JPG). Can't I just figure out sRGB or aRGB at that point in time (when processing the RAW)?
Am I missing something here?
-
... Will I go wrong if I shoot in JPG + RAW and use sRGB?
No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)
-
1. JPG = for casual social media sharing requiring little if any processing; and video is mainly sRGB anyway right?
2. RAW = digital negative so can't I figure out the gamut later? Like if I have a favorite photo I want in black and white, I will have to go back to the RAW file anyway (if I shot it in color in JPG). Can't I just figure out sRGB or aRGB at that point in time (when processing the RAW)?
1. Correct!
2. Yes, the raw file has the potential to produce any RGB working space your raw converter supports. If you are working with Adobe raw processors (Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom), the processing color space uses ProPhoto RGB sized gamut. So I would render your master images in that color space, after which you can always convert to a smaller color space like sRGB.
You can go bigger gamut to smaller but it is pointless to go the other way. Think of it as starting with a gallon container holding water. You can pour that into a quart container. But pouring a quart of water into an empty gallon container doesn't give you a gallon of water. So I would render from raw to the highest resolution your camera can produce, widest gamut (ProPhoto RGB), 16-bit, do all the work on that as your master image archive. Then you can size down the resolution and gamut for output to other needs like posting to the internet, slide shows etc.
-
No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)
The other caveat would be a situation where he posts the JPEG from the camera, then decides to process the raw and expects an exact match. Easier and possible with some manufacturer's raw converters. If one captures just raw and processes that, and then a JPEG iteration, it will match.
-
No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)
Whew, thanks! Fortunately I have plenty of hard drive space for photo/video on my NAS.
1. Correct!
2. Yes, the raw file has the potential to produce any RGB working space your raw converter supports. If you are working with Adobe raw processors (Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom), the processing color space uses ProPhoto RGB sized gamut. So I would render your master images in that color space, after which you can always convert to a smaller color space like sRGB.
You can go bigger gamut to smaller but it is pointless to go the other way. Think of it as starting with a gallon container holding water. You can pour that into a quart container. But pouring a quart of water into an empty gallon container doesn't give you a gallon of water. So I would render from raw to the highest resolution your camera can produce, widest gamut (ProPhoto RGB), 16-bit, do all the work on that as your master image archive. Then you can size down the resolution and gamut for output to other needs like posting to the internet, slide shows etc.
Ok, thanks! And yes, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 12 and Lightroom for processing stuff I actually print, as opposed to sharing on social media. Since it's hanging on my wall, I would prefer maximum quality in that instance!
-
CG Pro Prints, $39.99 for a 20x30 canvas with finished back.
Don't want you to think I blew you off on this. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I did find a huge difference in pricing for this kind of work and agree, you're getting a screaming good deal from this lab. I found some that do offer the option for Adobe RGB (1998) upload, but the price for this size print was as you say, many times higher. I can't comment on the quality of CG Pro Prints and if you're happy with them, and apparently you are, I can't suggest spending more just to upload Adobe RGB (1998) would be a wise business decision.
-
Whew, thanks! Fortunately I have plenty of hard drive space for photo/video on my NAS.
Ok, thanks! And yes, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 12 and Lightroom for processing stuff I actually print, as opposed to sharing on social media. Since it's hanging on my wall, I would prefer maximum quality in that instance!
This whole exchange is very instructive. Someone not especially sophisticated in the fine points of color management asks several fundamental questions. He is given straightforward, accurate, information that addresses his questions. His knowledge of color management is expanded. He's better off than he was before. No "rainbows," no "muffin tops." It makes me wonder how he could possibly grasp things so quickly without them!
;D
Rand
-
Bill, as the originator of the post, I can lock it down. I'm somewhat concerned about doing this because:
There have been some useful technical discussions that were sure to go over Gary's head that had nothing to do with the topic but were none the less useful additions.
Indeed there have been some very useful discussions and I, for one, have learned from them. Admittedly one has to kiss a lot of frogs before one finds the princess. But that's the nature of the internet.
Please don't lock it down.
-
Don't want you to think I blew you off on this. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I did find a huge difference in pricing for this kind of work and agree, you're getting a screaming good deal from this lab. I found some that do offer the option for Adobe RGB (1998) upload, but the price for this size print was as you say, many times higher. I can't comment on the quality of CG Pro Prints and if you're happy with them, and apparently you are, I can't suggest spending more just to upload Adobe RGB (1998) would be a wise business decision.
Correct, Andrew, and thanks for following up. Especially when I had to print 24 such pieces for an art fair, we are talking a potential difference of several thousand dollars. And of course, the same images printed on my home printer (Canon PRO-10, 13x19) do appear nicer, finer tonal gradations, livelier colors, sharper, etc. Just not dramatically so, to justify the price difference.
-
How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose? How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?
Gary, you wouldn't need to point it out at all if you handled criticism differently. You are essentially saying that you have introduced inaccuracy in the name of simplification to help people. Fine — I don't think it's necessary in this case, but it happens all the time. However, when someone points out the inaccuracy, what's your response? It's to tell them they are wrong and know nothing about the subject. For example:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Cyan green getting clipped? those colors are in the center of the spectrum. Why do people who know nothing about photography try to act like experts?
If you had simply said, 'yes, thanks I know, you are right, this is a simplification to make it very easy for everyone,' there would be no issue.
But, based on your comments on the videos, especially the one about greens not clipping, I think you actually believe (or believed) these models accurately represent the world. I can't imagine why else you would defend them so staunchly.
Now that's it's quite clear how wrong you and your simplifications are, what's your response? To call people names like 'colorbator.' It's like being in grade school again, where if you were bad at math you simply called the people who understood it names like 'nerd' rather than trying to get help. It's a classic defense mechanism; most of us grow out of it.
-
Like many guys here I'm not a colour scientist like Graeme Gill or Andrew Rodney
I'm no color scientist! Don't even play one on TV. My degree is in photography not that it's something Gary would care nor needs to consider. I do know a few color scientists and try to get some of their knowledge to rub off on me.
I recall years ago having lunch with Bill Atkinson and Thomas Knoll. No question I was dumbest person at that table! I think I understood maybe 5% of what they were talking about. A good friend, Karl Lang is a color scientist, tech edited my book. He came out to my home and spent two weeks going over all the text and ripping it to pieces. So glad he did. The book is far from prefect, we found some mistakes after first printing and tried to fix them for the 2nd.
-
And with that, perhaps we are done here.
Let me know by PM should you wish it otherwise
EDIT - OK I have unlocked it again but refrain from calling people names - please - kids?
-
And with that, perhaps we are done here.
Let me know by PM should you wish it otherwise
EDIT - OK I have unlocked it again but refrain from calling people names - please - kids?
Thank you, apologies to all.
-
I believe we have taken this thread pretty far at this point. We are not in the habit of locking thread or deleting messages as long as everyone stays civil and constructive with their posts.
The number of views and replies on this thread show the interest in the topic and the type of audience Luminous-Landscape has. I am very surprised that Gary has replied the way he has and that he couldn't accept that there may be another way to look at what he claimed. There are a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum that make it a great place for all of us to learn and get help when needed. I know Andrew and just spent a week with Jeff Schewe teaching a workshop. There is no question that these guys know their stuff. We have all learned a lot from them and use the principles of color management to make fine images.
There have been a number of interesting comments and name dropping in some of the posts. I do believe readers here are smart enough to figure things out in that regard. In the end the proof is in the pudding as they say.
Maybe it is time we move on to other matters.
Kevin Raber
-
To the Administrators, thanks for caring and having followed that without freaking out.
Gary used his account here to show he knows he's better than anyone else and respond with violence to anyone not aligning with his perception of the reality.
I'm concerned by what Andrew said tho regarding to the message Gary Fong sent him, threatening to attacking him in justice.
I would not be surprised if those threats extend to this website in some ways.
I would question if it's a good idea or not to allow him to continue provoking troubles and trolling here (really don't know what's the best solution)
If it's hard to take him seriously on color science, his nuisance capability probably is tho, so please all of you take care, we're not dealing with a reasonable and well balanced person here.
-
I'm concerned by what Andrew said tho regarding to the message Gary Fong sent him, threatening to attacking him in justice.
He did but I doubt he has a leg to stand on.
I would question if it's a good idea or not to allow him to continue provoking troubles and trolling here (really don't know what's the best solution)
But Gary should have the option to post here like anyone else. At this time, he hasn't stepped into the "yelling fire" in a crowed theater mode.
If it's hard to take him seriously on color science, his nuisance capability probably is tho, so please all of you take care, we're not dealing with a reasonable and well balanced person here.
In his PM to me about how he'll sue me and never let me off the hook, he told me: Google "Nelson Tang". Look what i did to the other end of that party.
I found this link with a video that may explain whether we're dealing with a reasonable and well balanced person:
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/24/wedding-photographer-threatened-with-300000-lawsuit/
It is a tad alarming. And yet the message has merit.
None the less, there has be some excellent comments, questions and answers in all these pages, with some new users to LuLa. It got a bit testy and I'm sorry for pouring some gas onto the fire. It shows why this is the best forum of it's kind anywhere on the web.
-
I found this link with a video that may explain whether we're dealing with a reasonable and well balanced person:
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/24/wedding-photographer-threatened-with-300000-lawsuit/
It is a tad alarming. And yet the message has merit.
Yes there's a pattern here: Gary starts with a good intention: support a fellow photographer who's bullied and victim of an injustice.
Then it drifts into violence and overall insanity.
I saw another YouTube video where he develops similar themes (http://youtu.be/Ih1a-Ldr4MI)
Although this time explains how he was the victim of blatant copyright infringement.
Probably where he developed a deep rooted hate for those "people on the internet" (expert or whatever).
I suppose that now that he's in an environment where litigation becomes part of the routine and he's used to get advice from lawyers, frustrations with those "self-proclaimed experts on the internet" gets likely to become more legal action (and work for his lawyers).
I've seen that before unfortunately.
-
Ok, so I have been following this with some scary amusement since it started. You all have to excuse me since English is not my first language! So anyways I have been following Gary on Facebook for some time. He's seem reasonable and have made a few post that I found interesting. But mostly it's been some stuff about his family life which is great for him but hasn't really interested me. BUT a year or so ago he put this thing about the lawsuit against Nelson Tang and I was really impressed in the way he took a stand and helped that poor photographer against this stupid lawyer. Gary gained a lot of respect in my eyes then to be honest. He's posted a few other things on his Facebook and I thought he was a really cool and honest guy just trying to help his fellow photographers out etc! BUT then all of a sudden the other week he posted a weird thing on his Facebook about those stupid color nerds that had commented on his YouTube video. So of course I had to check it out... I saw all the responses that Andrew Rodney made about don't take it personal I'm just trying to help you etc, I saw ALL OF THEM! But this nice and honest guy that I got to know thru his Facebook page just turned in to an EVIL and cursed everybody that didn't agree on him. I couldn't believe that the guy (Gary Fong) I got to know thru all these nice posts got so nasty and didn't want to listen whatsoever. And then when I read that Gary wants to sue Andrew and brings up Nelson Tang???? What does the Nelson Tang case have to do with this? To be quit honest this whole thing on LuLa has turned in to a mess and as much as I agree on Andrew Rodney's points, Gary won't listen whatsoever to what you say since he despise you and sorry to say probably hate you by now. But the rest of you people that know's your S H I T, he won't care because he think's by now that somebody is out on a vendetta (Sp?) to him. (When I write it turned in to a mess I don't agree with myself since I learned tons of stuff, but I guess most of you understands what I mean... If not PM me and I explain). So anyways I guess what I'm trying to say that I thought Gary Fong was a nice guy but I can't believe how he treated some people both here and on his YouTube! And if it wasn't for Mr Fong himself I wouldn't have followed this thread at all. I have been on the LuLa forums mostly reading for some years but as most of us know there's a worlds outside also so I'm sorry to say I'm not here so often anymore. I've had a very useful for me conversation years back with Andrew here years ago. I have been to Antarctica with Michael, Kevin and Jeff Schewe a few years ago so by saying that I'm sure I'm now officially on the Gary Fong Black List. But Gary you know what? I had a lot of respect in you a few weeks ago, I don't really care who's right or wrong here but the way you respond to people that tried to help you............. Sorry Gary I have no words! You're so full of yourself, and you should be honestly for a lot of things that you have done! But please don't treat the people that try to help you like S H I T. I know that Chris wanted to close this tread and maybe my post isn't appropriate but I just had to tell you guys how I've seen it as a lurker here and on Gary's Facebook. I'm sure that Gary is a nice guy and means the best but I can't believe how this thing turned in to this ugly thing! And believe me I learned a lot from this thread! I reminds me to log in more often! A a European I shouldn't even say what I thought of the Will Crockett video... It's been really fascinating to check in every day! But I think that if Gary is really going to sue Andrew he should really beforehand look in the mirror and ask himself about the difference with the Nelson Tang case. I read about his help with Nelson Tang and by Gary pulling that card here to sue Andrew is so far and different so all my respect that I actually did have for Mr Gary Fong is all gone. What you helped Nelson Tang with was great! And one more time I don't freaking care who's right or wrong but if you're on that high horse.... I don't mean to say this as a mock of anybody, there have been stupid thing's said from other people as we all know! The scary for me is that all of us I guess are adult people in our prime age and some of us behave like freaking kids. So for Chris I just say ARGHHHHHHHHH...
-
And believe me I learned a lot from this thread!
That makes it all worthwhile, thanks.
-
Andrew you have all of my respect! I learn't a lot here on this actual thread! You don't know me but we have met years ago briefly in NYC at Photo Expo. I have met the other guys on LuLa in Antarctica. I'm a nobody but I honestly do appreciate all the work and effort all of you put in to helping the rest of us! By that said I honestly did have a lot of respect for Gary Fong a few weeks ago but he's got a big uphill to gain it back and I honestly think he's able to sit back and think a little bit and gain that respect back! He's a very smart guy so I'm sure that we all just have to give him some time to come back in a "different mode".
And one more time English is NOT my first language! We should all remember that on these forums that all of us aren't native in this language. I see that people read in things to words and sentences that just might be "wrong" translation from our native language...
-
And one more time English is NOT my first language! We should all remember that on these forums that all of us aren't native in this language. I see that people read in things to words and sentences that just might be "wrong" translation from our native language...
Good point! And as I said to Slobodan, I've got a huge respect for those of you that can speak more than one language. After a year of high-school German, I couldn’t order a beer in that language to save my life! ;D
-
Good point! And as I said to Slobodan, I've got a huge respect for those of you that can speak more than one language. After a year of high-school German, I couldn’t order a beer in that language to save my life! ;D
Luckily for you, it is pronounced the same and spelled just a little bit different ("bier"), so your life would be ok in Germany (i.e., saved) ;)
-
A good friend, Karl Lang is a color scientist, tech edited my book. He came out to my home and spent two weeks going over all the text and ripping it to pieces. So glad he did. The book is far from prefect...
Perfect! You did that on purpose, right? I love it.
Jim
-
Apparently Gary even deleted my relatively benign, no personal attacks comment explaining where he went awry in his video. I guess that shows you the measure of the man, but y'all can make up your own mind.
After one of Gary's earlier posts where he went on and on about having the Fuji technicians over to his lab almost on a daily basis to fiddle with the color response, I'm wondering why he didn't just linearize the printer, nail down the chemistry line and then make a good custom profile of the Fuji, rather than spend so much time and effort to try and squeeze and force that device into something sort of resembled sRGB. I mean, for a self proclaimed color management expert, I would have thought this would be obvious. Hell, I was making my own custom Frontier profiles for my local Costco long before Dry Creek was around, and they worked so well, the counter people always asked how I got the color so good the first time through with no test prints.
Oh well. This entire thread is one of the most disappointing ones I've read in some time.
-
Oh well. This entire thread is one of the most disappointing ones I've read in some time.
I'm afraid it's basic human weakness that we're all capable of clinging tenaciously to wholly implausible beliefs:
- when our livelihood depends on believing it
- when we've invested personal credibility into that belief
- When our peer group believes it, and those saying otherwise come from a group we don't like ("they're not even professional photographers")
- and on and on and on
It's extraordinary the lengths even intelligent people will go (often subconsciously) to avoid confronting false beliefs.
-
I'm afraid it's basic human weakness that we're all capable of clinging tenaciously to wholly implausible beliefs:
...
It's extraordinary the lengths even intelligent people will go (often subconsciously) to avoid confronting false beliefs.
Simon, I agree with your list however I am not so sure that Gary is exercising that much intelligence and, in addition, I also think that he has other agendas that are driving him that make any distinction between right/wrong, fact/fallacy, prudent/risky etc irrelevant.
Basically, for Gary, the issue has never been about colour management in the slightest.
Yesterday, the mask slipped and the real Gary Fong evidenced himself in a very frank couple of outbursts and in an email to Andrew Rodney threatened him in a rather ham-fisted fashion.
Tony Jay
-
I'm afraid it's basic human weakness that we're all capable of clinging tenaciously to wholly implausible beliefs:
- when our livelihood depends on believing it
- when we've invested personal credibility into that belief
- When our peer group believes it, and those saying otherwise come from a group we don't like ("they're not even professional photographers")
- and on and on and on
It's extraordinary the lengths even intelligent people will go (often subconsciously) to avoid confronting false beliefs.
Well said sir :)
I think once one finds themselves in this situation it is very difficult to accept the embarrassing conclusion that they have been wrong and is made worse IMO if these beliefs have persisted over many years. This is not a new argument and I remember seeing similar on DPreview about 10 years ago with good answers being given by someone called Beki about the sRGB Adobe RGB debacle.
I believe what we are seeing here is termed Confirmation Bias. In this case the tendency is for the individual to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms their belief to the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary. People will seek out and prefer any sources that affirm their existing beliefs even with overwhelming evidence showing these beliefs to be false. Sometimes going to extraordinary lengths to prove their case
-
I'm sorry but this thread really needs to be closed down now. It no longer is about color management but has badly morphed into personality issues. Whether someone has threatened to sue someone else or has defended a photographer accused of some malfeasance is irrelevant. We are here to discuss photography and it's certainly clear that the issue of sRGB v AdobeRGB has been resolved for all of us who are longstanding members of LuLa. I find this latest turn in the comments disturbing and I will not be party to schadenfreude. Andrew, do the right thing now and lock this one down.
-
I'm sorry but this thread really needs to be closed down now. It no longer is about color management but has badly morphed into personality issues. Whether someone has threatened to sue someone else or has defended a photographer accused of some malfeasance is irrelevant. We are here to discuss photography and it's certainly clear that the issue of sRGB v AdobeRGB has been resolved for all of us who are longstanding members of LuLa. I find this latest turn in the comments disturbing and I will not be party to schadenfreude. Andrew, do the right thing now and lock this one down.
Fair enough by me
Tony Jay
-
After one of Gary's earlier posts where he went on and on about having the Fuji technicians over to his lab almost on a daily basis to fiddle with the color response, I'm wondering why he didn't just linearize the printer, nail down the chemistry line and then make a good custom profile of the Fuji, rather than spend so much time and effort to try and squeeze and force that device into something sort of resembled sRGB. I mean, for a self proclaimed color management expert, I would have thought this would be obvious. Hell, I was making my own custom Frontier profiles for my local Costco long before Dry Creek was around, and they worked so well, the counter people always asked how I got the color so good the first time through with no test prints.
What you are talking about is testing the chemistry against a densitometer to see if the paper is coming across with no cast. We would plot those values (what you call 'linearizing the printer). This is something that has to be done every couple of hours. It monitors the chemistry. OMG this is so funny how you just said, "rather than spend so much time and effort to try and squeeze and force that device into something sort of resembled sRGB" - THAT'S FUNNY! You are an expert on color, right? Is it possible to take an sRGB file and "squeeze and force that into something sort of resembled sRGB." So many color experts in one place giving so much accurate information here!
The Fuji people were there because my stock Frontier was too punchy. We literally had to program a channel to increase midrange detail in the color channels and density. This is as basic as brushing your teeth. The whole Fuji had to be modified before we could take on portrait work. That's why the engineers were there. To literally reprogram the channels. This is not something you could do if you didn't make the machine. Maybe you could, maybe you should contact Fuji and offer them your expertise in color.
The conversation that I had with Mr. Rodney was this - he had called Will Crockett a liar. I have the screen shots. It is this simple. I am in touch with the X-rite people. If Mr. Crockett is an X-rite member, then calling Mr. Crockett a liar (discrediting him) is actionable. What I said to Mr. Rodney was that if this is the case, I have offered to fund the litigation to bring this through to the end. To those of you who saw my passion in the Mr. Tang case, we not only won the case for Mr. Tang, but we also had the attorney bar disciplined.
It will then be Mr. Crockett to determine if he wants to pursue a case. If he does, I will fund it.
LuLa does have a large audience, as you can see by the number of views or the number of subscriptions my channel has received since this started . The questions I addressed to regarding to the limited amount of influence some of these posters had for the photography world was directed to the posters, most of all Andrew Rodney. I made calls with a lot of the top people in the industry trying to find out who he was, of the few who knew him, the response was words like, "stubborn, dinosaur, argumentative" etc. So when I meant a limited audience, it was kind of referring to Mr. Rodney, who, as far as I can see, won't be teaching on a major platform convention for as far as I can see.
This community is uncohesive, because I have a lot of confused spectators writing me. The consensus is this, "all I see is confusion and fighting". I think the worst part of this thread was when I asked the group will the straight AdobeRGB be visibly better, and only one (relatively silent member) said, ok, I'll predict it will look better. None of you said that, and the AdobeRGB did win.
When someone decides to seek damages in court, it doesn't make them crazy. Or delusional. If they were they would get thrown out of court. We don't go in unless we know we'll win, and I haven't lost a case in 20 continuous years of litigation, including a federal jury trial. I do this because when I see civil laws being broken to the detriment of a friend, and the friend can't fund the defence, I do it.
I know we should probably close the thread. I have what I wanted, which is a voluminous "typed answer" to a question when I do my skypecasts on color management. We will be doing a series in why people are disappointed with either of the color spaces, and addressing the controversy by using examples here, mostly the heated ones.
In terms of my responses, in many times I should have counted to ten before typing. This is the threads I pulled. I said I thought a person was stupid, and that is how I respond to stupid people. This is not something I would say to someone's face if they were sensitive or fragile. But I would say it in person, to people who are, but think they're smart. It's not just me typing. I'd say these things to a person's face.
Lastly there were a huge number of eyeballs on the site, and subscriptions piked. If some of those people think that once they are in, they get to see people beating each other up, that won't happen. Our series of real-world file to output experiments are going to document what the camera retailing people will favor. And then interviews with my friends and colleagues, the world's top photographers, like Gary Gorman, Eric Meola, Brian Smith, Jay Meisel, Robert Evans on their workflows.
This thread has really given me a ton of insight as to how deep this divide is (even within this forum) so it's our next video project. It will be a short-lived one, because pro photographers are now fusioning into one camera, two roles (still/video) and for video, it's all sRGB (which I'll prove in another YouTube video).
-
But, based on your comments on the videos, especially the one about greens not clipping, I think you actually believe (or believed) these models accurately represent the world. I can't imagine why else you would defend them so staunchly.
You will see in one of my comments, - what should I do, make the center hump of the rainbow larger? When I've gone to the iconic "gamut map" and try to do the same concept (to show clipping) everybody gets lost. Far easier as an intro to clipping, to show a simple term, like rainbows, muffin tops, etc. to get the point across in the typical 4 minute YouTube video.
That's why I am leaving the flat green-centered rainbows. If any of you made a video for beginners, showing them in real world (meaning, most images are shared uploaded by a huge majority) and then the next group gets wet process prints (WHCC, Bay Photo Lab, Millers) to finally the small number of people who shoot in RAW, export to or capture in AdobeRGB have to know what they are doing from that point.
All of you have tried to mischaracterize the video and twist it around. Someone here said that I'm all about staying in sRGB. No, the first thing I said was AdobeRGB is better, but only on equipment that can handle it. And the first sentence in the video description says, "one of the hotly debated topics is sRGB and AdobeRGB.
You workflow specialists are not going to wake up the minds going to your color workshops to people who buy Digital Rebels. They aren't going to care about all the things that you do for your enhanced results. And they are happy with what they get.
You are not happy with what they get because they won't put in the time to get the expertise on color management. Neither do any of the working pros I know. I've called so many of them - who say, "I just shoot in RAW and fix in Lightroom". When it comes to which color space, they just give the files to the client in many cases.
I knew this was going to be hot, because the three groups will never understand each other. It's like having a Tea Party Convention in San Francisco. It's going to be hot. You coloratti's will never understand why top professional photographers don't adopt your workflow methods, and top professional photographers will not understand what you try to accomplish here.
-
The conversation that I had with Mr. Rodney was this - he had called Will Crockett a liar. I have the screen shots. It is this simple. I am in touch with the X-rite people. If Mr. Crockett is an X-rite member, then calling Mr. Crockett a liar (discrediting him) is actionable. What I said to Mr. Rodney was that if this is the case, I have offered to fund the litigation to bring this through to the end. To those of you who saw my passion in the Mr. Tang case, we not only won the case for Mr. Tang, but we also had the attorney bar disciplined.
It will then be Mr. Crockett to determine if he wants to pursue a case. If he does, I will fund it.
Well, I have friends at X-Rite too and if Mr. Crockett is a Coloratti, he won't be for long given the lack of respect he showed describing his involvement with those kind of things…frankly I thought what he said was an insult to all the people involved in the Coloratti program. I have been a member (and am still involved although I choose not to brag about it) and I know all the color geeks involved and I've never heard Mr. Crockett mentioned–with the exception perhaps on topics of ridicule.
Oh, BTW, I you want to fund the lawsuit, I'll be there to help and fund Andrew's defense if he needs it. I seriously doubt he'll need it though. Anybody can sue anybody but actually coming to court and winning is not for the faint of heart.
In any event, if Mr Crockett is not a current member of the Colorotti, then using the name and association is deceptive at best and is doing neither he nor X-Rite any favors…at this point I suspect X-Rite would not want to have anything to do with him.
-
I'm sorry but this thread really needs to be closed down now. It no longer is about color management but has badly morphed into personality issues. Whether someone has threatened to sue someone else or has defended a photographer accused of some malfeasance is irrelevant. We are here to discuss photography and it's certainly clear that the issue of sRGB v AdobeRGB has been resolved for all of us who are longstanding members of LuLa. I find this latest turn in the comments disturbing and I will not be party to schadenfreude. Andrew, do the right thing now and lock this one down.
Couple points:
1. I still don't feel that I should pull the plug on the thread which as OP I can. It still feels like censorship.
2. If anyone doesn't wish to partake or continue, there are ways to stop notifications.
3. There are still posts from people on the subject of color management coming in. Case in point is Peter's (pfigen) post about his experience with Fuji printers and profiles. IF as Gary states, this is an sRGB printer, Peter wouldn't have needed to build a profile, he'd just send sRGB to the printer. That he was able to build a profile and could share the gamut plots and show it against sRGB (something I did earlier), would continue to dismiss Gary's mistaken understandings on how these printers really work.
4. Michael, Chris or Kevin can lock the thread of course. PM them if you really, really feel it needs to be done. We'll all get an email that person locked the thread.
Lastly, if Gary is going to be silly enough to take legal action, anything he wrote and continues to write here could be a useful paper trail! As I said in the past, it's a useful paper trail for anyone here who wishes to point out to others his fallacies and misunderstanding of color (among other items), and what others have suggested (and I agree) is a severe personality issue.
-
You will see in one of my comments, - what should I do, make the center hump of the rainbow larger?
A simple demonstration of proper color conversion between sRGB and AdobeRGB (1998) might do the trick (see attachment).
Cheers,
Bart
-
OMG this is so funny how you just said, "rather than spend so much time and effort to try and squeeze and force that device into something sort of resembled sRGB" - THAT'S FUNNY! You are an expert on color, right?
Yup and a photographer. Just one more that has come to dismiss you Gary.
The Fuji people were there because my stock Frontier was too punchy.
And a good profile would have addressed that. At the time you probably didn't know what an ICC profile was, I'm not sure you do today based on your writings.
If Mr. Crockett is an X-rite member, then calling Mr. Crockett a liar (discrediting him) is actionable.
Ah, so now it's if? Why don't you share with his the screen shots, love to see them.
Here's what I wrote that you deleted:
Based on the first 16 seconds take anything heard here with a grain of salt.
One thing appears to be true, Crockett is no X-rite Coloritti despite the claim:
https://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=367
Not on X-rite's site.
On the other hand, yours truly is!
------------
LuLa does have a large audience, as you can see by the number of views or the number of subscriptions my channel has received since this started.
That's about the first factual statement you've made in ages!
I made calls with a lot of the top people in the industry trying to find out who he was, of the few who knew him, the response was words like, "stubborn, dinosaur, argumentative" etc. So when I meant a limited audience, it was kind of referring to Mr. Rodney, who, as far as I can see, won't be teaching on a major platform convention for as far as I can see.
This is as silly as the 'your not a photographer so my inaccurate rants on color must be correct'. Truth be told, I've been working nearly full time since 2008 with two major companies on color with a partner that is vastly more financially and mentally stimulating then talking to a group of conventioneers. That was so last century Gary.
I asked the group will the straight AdobeRGB be visibly better, and only one (relatively silent member) said, ok, I'll predict it will look better. None of you said that, and the AdobeRGB did win.
Because the group here is pretty smart and wouldn't get trapped into making the kinds of silly statements you do after they understood the idiotic testing methodology you proposed. They still do.
I know we should probably close the thread.
We? You don't have that influence. You can of course move on, you've shot yourself in both feet pages ago.
I have what I wanted, which is a voluminous "typed answer" to a question when I do my skypecasts on color management.
IOW, you got material for your next stand up comedy act.
In terms of my responses, in many times I should have counted to ten before typing.
Or the profanity of the video you made that was referenced here. At one point I thought your head would explode.
-
When I've gone to the iconic "gamut map" and try to do the same concept (to show clipping) everybody gets lost.
This is classic Gary Fong. He really thinks he's super smart and his audience is dumb. They get lost, it is their fault. It isn't that Gary rambles on unscripted to talk about the subject incorrectly, his audience is in his opinion as expressed above, is too stupid to hear a good teacher properly instruct them! I pointed this out on his video, he said I said his audience is dumb. He'll say that about the above statement (Andrew Rodney said you are all dumb). I didn't, I said Gary treats them that as if they are and they are not dumb. Classic inability to comprehend English (now he will call me a racist again).
It's all about Gary unless there is any lick of criticism of which he deserves, then it's all about the other person.
The reason so many people who properly teach color management use the 'gamut map' is because of the utter butchering of the topic illustrated by Gary in his now famous comedy act! It is the correct way to teach about gamut. Just about anyone can understand the concept if the person teaching it isn't Will Crockett or Gary Fong and speak in a language the audience can understand. It isn't rocket science by far and not a signal human on this planet was born understanding it. And yet, lots do understand it, unless they have been to video's by Gary or Will's (and a few others who believe them). And that is what is so sad, people don't deserve to be treated as idiots and given misinformation when it is the person teaching them that is acting like the idiot.
-
Further discussion of the photography-related topics of this thread is welcomed in a new thread.
However this thread has reached its end and is now locked.