Lee Varis' introduction to color management

[Tony Jay]

If details are lost, you have clipping. You don't automatically get clipping in any other color space than ProPhoto. That's the myth. Not if you do it right.

I never accept clipping, ever. Just so we're clear on that.

I agree with this, but then sometimes you won't get the colour using a smaller colorspace either.

Tony Jay

[digitaldog]

The colorspace itself does not cause these problems and the same problems can arise using sRGB.

Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB, ProPhoto RGB are just color spaces, or rather containers. They don't inherently have any information other than specifications for primaries, white point, and gamma. Until we actually have a pixel, they don’t contain any information.

ProPhotoRGB allows me retain many of the subtle colour hues in my prints that would be lost in a smaller editing colorspace.
(Maybe this is what Andrew was referring to when mentioning preserving differences between colours.)

That is exactly what I see reported by ColorThink and what I see on the output of my prints.

[TRANTOR]

TL;DR (:

Photoshop is not about color, it's about numbers in channels.

[digitaldog]

Photoshop is not about color, it's about numbers in channels.

What about numbers that are not color(s)?
And what to do when the numbers differ when they should be the same?

[TRANTOR]

I mean that Photoshop tools gives different results that depend on chosen color space and/or profile. Same numbers and not the same color as result. See example above - inside all gamuts, both for AdobeRGB and sRGB.

[digitaldog]

I mean that Photoshop tools gives different results that depend on chosen color space and/or profile. Same numbers and not the same color as result.

Expect when dealing with Lab values which is why my last illustration needs Adobe's attention.
Again, there are a slew of numbers that are not colors. And differing numbers that are the same color.

[TRANTOR]

Expect when dealing with Lab values which is why my last illustration needs Adobe's attention.

Agree with you. But they need more attention to Photoshop Lab format min/max values. =) BTW, Lightroom indicates correct Lab numbers for green primary of ProPhotoRGB.

Again, there are a slew of numbers that are not colors.

I talk about the case that gives different results inside all gamuts and of course inside all min/max values.

And differing numbers that are the same color.

When you work with color your tool must be correct in numbers that represent color (Lab PCS, XYZ PCS etc).

Accordingly Photoshop are completely odd. =)

[hugowolf]

CMS, dull but necessary, and yet insufficient.

Brian A

[Iliah]

Actually that isn't too far from the truth, according to this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm

Pointer's gamut is, in short, the gamut of reflected surface colors. Here compared to Adobe RGB:

<disclaimer: I didn't watch the video and have no opinions on it as such>

Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.

[digitaldog]

Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.

They are of course endless unless:
1. You don't really know what you're talking about 
2. You do but have an agenda to ignore the facts that you just pointed out; it's rather easy to find such images.

[D Fosse]

Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.

I was really done with this thread, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make, because people keep misunderstanding it.

The question isn't what comes out of the camera or out of Lightroom. Anything can come out here. But that doesn't make these colors sacred and untouchable.

The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.

I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.

Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.

[digitaldog]

The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.
I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.
Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.

I was really done with this thread too, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make as well: The benefits of a wider gamut working space than Adobe RGB (1998) is exactly what I see reported by ColorThink and what I see on the output of my prints. That doesn't mean I'm unable to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB! It means using a wider gamut working space on many images produces even more stunning color.

[Iliah]

I was really done with this thread, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make, because people keep misunderstanding it.

The question isn't what comes out of the camera or out of Lightroom. Anything can come out here. But that doesn't make these colors sacred and untouchable.

The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.

I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.

Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.

I must admit I indeed do not know what you are talking about. My data is from spectroradiometer.

[D Fosse]

I must admit I indeed do not know what you are talking about

Well, I'll leave it at that anyway. I have no problems with Andrew's point of view, but other POVs are equally valid. It depends on where you come from.

I just get dizzy from going in circles 

[digitaldog]

POV's and opinions based on actual tested results are a bit more valid than those that are not tested IMHO. Again, all I can suggest is the output I see and have shown (albeit via an sRGB video) in addition to what ColorThink shows me of data in an output color space does produce a visible difference and improvement.


Getting back OT, did Lee do any of this? Can he explain defend the output and colorimetry from ColorThink, (a product he actually used in his video) that suggests his ideas on a working space is iffy at best? And what about his ideas of high bit data? Scanners and digital camera systems, software products nearly two decades old, that provide high bit data are doing this for no reason?


Not all POV's, are created equally.