ICC Profile Choice - ProPhoto RGB

[AlterEgo]

ah, okay - I did get you wrong. Makes sense - thanks!

that's why presence and some comments from P1 technical guys are most welcome - a lot can be clarified w/o disclosing any actual secrets and competition (like Adobe developers) in any case is very much capable know more than that anyways...

[AlterEgo]

while this is true I am talking about processed images

sure,

I am mostly about what happens before that - that's most intriguing part !

[Manoli]

   AR: so the colorimetric interpretation varies from camera to camera? You are saying it does, I have no reason to doubt that (I'm here to learn). That would appear to indicate some profile, supplied or under the hood for each camera could be examined for it's gamut size. I'm not referring to a profile built from shooting a target of course, I'm referring to what I believe is a profile or some description we can interrupt a gamut size from: the conversion from the camera space (the “colorimetric interpretation” if you will) is based on ICC profiles.
I think we agree that this gamut is indeed a “colorimetric interpretation”

Just to digress, briefly ... most cameras have a menu option of either sRGB or aRGB.
I shoot in RAW and convert to a jpeg or tiff through a raw converter (when necessary, which is not too often) and have always ignored that input, leaving it on the default sRGB - believing it had no impact (shooting raw) on the capture and is only relevant for in-cam jpeg or tiff conversions.
Is that correct ?

 

[digitaldog]

Just to digress, briefly ... most cameras have a menu option of either sRGB or aRGB.
I shoot in RAW and convert to a jpeg or tiff through a raw converter (when necessary, which is not too often) and have always ignored that input, leaving it on the default sRGB - believing it had no impact (shooting raw) on the capture and is only relevant for in-cam jpeg or tiff conversions.
Is that correct ?

Yes. All you're telling the camera is how you wish the raw data you will not get, to be encoded (sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998)).

[Manoli]

Thanks, Andrew.

[tho_mas]

This is a bit of a nonsense. ProPhoto RGB encompasses all visible colours. So, a gamut may be larger but that just means it is less efficient.

No nonsense. Read correctly: you can produce colors that exceed ProPhoto. To do this you can increase global saturation in the Advanced Color Editor. But by default - so without any color edits - the input profiles are typically somwhere between Adobe-RGB and ProPhoto-RGB ... attached the default input profile of your camera compared to ProPhoto-RGB...

[digitaldog]

No nonsense. Read correctly: you can produce colors that exceed ProPhoto.

Colors that we can't see?

[tho_mas]

That would appear to indicate some profile, supplied or under the hood for each camera could be examined for it's gamut size. I'm not referring to a profile built from shooting a target of course, I'm referring to what I believe is a profile or some description we can interrupt a gamut size from: the conversion from the camera space (the “colorimetric interpretation” if you will) is based on ICC profiles.
I think we agree that this gamut is indeed a “colorimetric interpretation”

yes, we agree. And said profiles are all supplied so that you can ... for instance ... examine them in a gamut viewer software.

[tho_mas]

Colors that we can't see?

yes... just like the full blue of ProPhoto-RGB ... that shows L=0, so no luminosity at all and therefore is pure black... :-)

AGAIN: you can - artificially/technically - boost the colors (the input profiles to be precise) in a way so that they exceed ProPhoto. But of course you would never do this with a real world image.

[digitaldog]

yes... just like the full blue of ProPhoto-RGB ... that shows L=0, so no luminosity at all and therefore is pure black... :-)

Not on my printed output it doesn't. And those are colors I can see.

AGAIN: you can - artificially/technically - boost the colors (the input profiles to be precise) in a way so that they exceed ProPhoto. But of course you would never do this with a real world image.

You can artificially/technically - boost the device values of course. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Colors that we can't see?

Yes, they're called imaginary colors, but you know that. According to Bruce Lindbloom, ProPhoto RGB has a coding efficiency of 87.3% which means that it allows to encode 12.7% of imaginary colors on top of the 'real colors' (humanly visible, on average).

Those imaginary colors are mathematically usable and may still be relevant when one e.g. locally shrinks the saturation so that these colors become 'real colors'.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Yes, they're called imaginary colors, but you know that.

Indeed. FWIW, there are some (I'm not lumping myself into either camp) that suggest Imaginary Colors isn't kosher. I'll leave this well know and respected color scientist's name undefined by he stated:

Coordinate in a "colorspace" outside the spectrum locus is not a
color. We often refer to these as "imaginary colors" but this is by
and large also erroneous (you can't map an imaginary color from one
colorspace to another as the math (and experimental data) for each
colorspace breaks down outside the spectrum locus.

Hence, I prefer to use Device Value ala Steve Upton and the discussions here on LuLa last year.

[tho_mas]

Not on my printed output it doesn't. And those are colors I can see.

I wonder what your printed blue has to do with the working space of your RAW-software. But while we're at it: the table based input icc profiles in C1 are all very much aimed at real world devices. ProPhoto-RGB on the other hand is just an imaginary "monitor" ... and due to its matrix design it is much larger than needed. Doesn't matter when you know how to work with such an unreal working space, sure. But it's somewhat strange that it is you who is talking about colors we can see...

[digitaldog]

I wonder what your printed blue has to do with the working space of your RAW-software.

Depending on what blue you're referring to, possibility nothing.

But while we're at it: the table based input icc profiles in C1 are all very much aimed at real world devices.

Whatever that means... examine the very first post here by the OP who specifically wants to encode into ProPhoto RGB.

ProPhoto-RGB on the other hand is just an imaginary "monitor" ... and due to its matrix design it is much larger than needed.

We've been over this already: it's the price one pays for an RGB working space who's gamut is large enough to also encode 'real world' colors we can capture and output.

Doesn't matter when you know how to work with such an unreal working space, sure. But it's somewhat strange that it is you who is talking about colors we can see...

I'm simply pointing out the language could be better defined. Had you said Imagery Colors as Bart did, no issue. Better, had you said Device Values. The language here has been a bit iffy, starting with: Capture One works in a very large color space, similar to that captured by camera sensors.

[tho_mas]

examine the very first post here by the OP who specifically wants to encode into ProPhoto RGB.

which is very easy to accomplish ... simply set ProPhoto as "output" space. Done...

I'm simply pointing out the language could be better defined. Had you said Imagery Colors as Bart did, no issue. Better, had you said Device Values.

agreed. Although I was only talking about "colors" a profile may contain. Visible or imaginary... the term "color" is not completely misleading (at least if you take language barriers into account :-) ...)

[digitaldog]

which is very easy to accomplish ... simply set ProPhoto as "output" space. Done...

Going full circle, getting back to the question that started us down this path, should he?

[tho_mas]

Going full circle, getting back to the question that started us down this path, should he?

the problem with the initial question was the question itself: "how can I set ProPhot as input profile?". While there is indeed a workaround to do so it doesn't make sense at all. It's like asking: "how can I use the icc Input profile of my P45 in Lightroom?"

[digitaldog]

the problem with the initial question was the question itself: "how can I set ProPhot as input profile?". While there is indeed a workaround to do so it doesn't make sense at all. It's like asking: "how can I use the icc Input profile of my P45 in Lightroom?"

Perhaps, I fully admit my ignorance in how this product works. But I did read the OP asking: Can I import ProPhoto RGB and make it an option to edit in?

[tho_mas]

Perhaps, I fully admit my ignorance in how this product works. But I did read the OP asking: Can I import ProPhoto RGB and make it an option to edit in?

again wrong question. To edit in ProPhoto you don't have to import the profile into C1. As long as it is installed on the system so that you can set it as output space in C1 you are effectively editing in ProPhoto-RGB! You are always editing in the color space selected as output ... you can even edit in a CMYK color space. And I tell you what: C1 will display the corresponding CMYK values for color read outs! Lightroom?

[tho_mas]

AGAIN: you can - artificially/technically - boost the colors (the input profiles to be precise) in a way so that they exceed ProPhoto. But of course you would never do this with a real world image.

to illustrate this a bit further ...
Attached a Granger Rainbow image loaded in Color Think - a.) processed with sRGB assigned and b.) processed with saturation boosted by 200% in C1's Advanced Color Editor. And c.) - for comparision - also a ProPhoto-RGB profile (opaque white).

Whatever this tells about C1's real "internal working space" ... it is pretty clear that C1 can produce images containing a gamut that exceeds ProPhoto.
Whether this is useful or not is another question ... but whatever you want to do in C1 is certainly not limited by a certain "internal color space".