What are the essential adjustments that SHOULD be done in the raw processor?

[bjanes]

The choice to me is that if I had to pick one and only one working space then I would most likely pick Beta RGB (or possibly ProPhoto as it's more widely used).  But I don't have to pick one working space and so if I'm developing a photo for the Web, say, I think it makes sense to use sRGB.  For print I will go back to Beta RGB (although I have been using Adobe RGB recently, mainly because it avoids me having to worry about colors that are not visible on my monitor)

There are soooo many applications images may be used in today that it doesn't make sense to process an image with regard to a certain target in the first place. It makes much more sense to process a photo so that it contains all relevant data (a processed 1:1 copy of the adjusted RAW-file, if you want so...). And then convert to a certain color space with the help of gamut warning and the Info-Platte in Photoshop (or elswhere).

Robert and Tho_mas use two different approaches. If one is performing a simple rendering without much editing, then it could make sense to do a rendering suitable for the intended use of the image. However, if one is going to spend considerable time working with the image, it makes sense to render it with maximal quality so as to make a master image and then adapt the master image to any intended purpose. 16 bit ProPhotoRGB would be a good choice for the master image, and sRGB would be too limited.

If one is using a parametric editor such as Lightroom, the editing is done in a wide gamut space and one is in effect working on the master image. Choice of the output space and resizing and output sharpening are deferred until export.

Bill

[tho_mas]

Might be different, doubtful considering the dE report of the thousands upon thousands of pixel (device values) who's dE differences in using either end of the working space gamut spectrum (sRGB vs. ProPhoto RGB) are tiny and invisible. Of course, you're encouraged to provide example images and dE reports that show otherwise.

I was just thinking out loud. As said above I have no reservations working with large color spaces nor do I have the desire to provide evidence for irrelevant deviations... Quite the opposite I've repeatedly suggested to output to the respective "internal" color space RAW converters are effectively working in...

[digitaldog]

However, if one is going to spend considerable time working with the image, it makes sense to render it with maximal quality so as to make a master image and then adapt the master image to any intended purpose. 16 bit ProPhotoRGB would be a good choice for the master image, and sRGB would be too limited.
If one is using a parametric editor such as Lightroom, the editing is done in a wide gamut space and one is in effect working on the master image. Choice of the output space and resizing and output sharpening are deferred until export.

Exactly! Plus the LR/ACR engine uses ProPhoto RGB (Primaries, color gamut).

[tho_mas]

if one is going to spend considerable time working with the image, it makes sense to render it with maximal quality so as to make a master image and then adapt the master image to any intended purpose.

isn't that exactly what a RAW-workflow is all about? Of course "maximal quality" has little to do with high saturation. In fact a lot of real world photos would fit into sRGB. But "maximal quality" of course has to do with avoiding any color clipping... and the best way to avoid clipping is to avoid color space conversions... so to keep the initial color space.
As far as conversions to smaller gamuts go there are some pretty decent profiles that allow an almost "automated" workflow... the ICC PRMG profile, PhotogamutRGB and the ICC sRGB-Appearance profile for example...

16 bit ProPhotoRGB would be a good choice for the master image, and sRGB would be too limited.

16bit ProPhoto is the obvious choice for an Adobe workflow. Basically: The internal color space of the respective RAW converter is preferable.
As a general "working space" personally I do favor a "device independant" working space that is large enough to contain all theoretically printable colors but that does not contain imaginary colors... Rec2020 with an LStar-TRC for example (which is what I use... if I use a "working space" at all...).

[bjanes]

As a general "working space" personally I do favor a "device independant" working space that is large enough to contain all theoretically printable colors but that does not contain imaginary colors... Rec2020 with an LStar-TRC for example (which is what I use... if I use a "working space" at all...).

Rec2020 primaries are reasonable and cover the Pointer gamut. A LStar-TRC is reasonable, but offers little advantage over the sRGB TRC as Bruce Lindbloom demonstrated in his post describing his BetaRGB. Rec2020 uses a white point of 6500K, which necessitates WB conversions with many profiles using 5K as the white point.

Is a Rec2020 profile with your characteristics available for download and use with Photoshop? Personally, I am satisfied with ProPhotoRGB for my own work and see little reason to change.

Regards,

Bill

PS

Here is a good link regarding the Rec2020 gamut.

[Robert Ardill]

That's the only way I fly and the only way my raw converters provide data from raw when correctly setup for rendering the data!
 Exactly, so just stick with ProPhoto RGB! It's no worse and often far better WHEN the data exceeds sRGB (which is pretty often in these parts).

You wouldn't have shares in ProPhoto by any chance?

BTW ... what is 'incorrect' about setting up the raw converter to render to 8 bits?  If there is indeed something fundamentally wrong then perhaps you should tell Adobe as they offer this option in Lightroom.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That would be shares in Eastman Kodak. Pretty worthless these days, I would guess.

Best regards
Erik

You wouldn't have shares in ProPhoto by any chance?

[Robert Ardill]

Robert and Tho_mas use two different approaches. If one is performing a simple rendering without much editing, then it could make sense to do a rendering suitable for the intended use of the image. However, if one is going to spend considerable time working with the image, it makes sense to render it with maximal quality so as to make a master image and then adapt the master image to any intended purpose. 16 bit ProPhotoRGB would be a good choice for the master image, and sRGB would be too limited.

Exactly, we are using different approaches and it would be incorrect to say that one approach is right while the other is wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing final editing in workspace x rather than workspace y, assuming that the only difference between them is the gamut, and providing the image gamut (plus editing adjustments) fits into the workspace (or we are content to shrink it to fit).  But even if these do not hold, all one could say is that workspace x may be preferable to workspace y.

What is wrong is to recommend a very large workspace like ProPhoto without being VERY clear on the things to watch out for.  A novice user is very likely to blow the output device gamut and end up with an ugly image with banding or other artifacts and not know why.

Expert users know what they are doing and so they can make an informed choice and take the appropriate precautions (and know how to).

Equally, if you intend to make a great deal of adjustments to your image but you know that the image gamut will never exceed sRGB, say, then what is wrong with using sRGB?  If at a later stage you decide to make a collage, for example, with another highly saturated image ... well then move over to ProPhoto or BetaRGB, or whatever floats your boat.

There may be advantages in a D50 color space if the intended output is to print and one's monitor is calibrated to D50 ... but then again, if the intended output is to web then there may be an advantage in using sRGB and calibrating your monitor to D65 and sRGB.  But, by and large, I think color management deals with issues pretty well so I for one won't lose too much sleep over it.

Cheers

Robert

[Robert Ardill]

Hi,

That would be shares in Eastman Kodak. Pretty worthless these days, I would guess.

Best regards
Erik

hmmm ... I guess I'll give ProPhoto a miss then.  Pity

[digitaldog]

If there is indeed something fundamentally wrong then perhaps you should tell Adobe as they offer this option in Lightroom.

They've taken care of this for all of us:

[Robert Ardill]

They've taken care of this for all of us:

I hope you're not printing at 240ppi!!

[dwswager]

Hi,

I'm a Lightroom user normally, but having changed from Canon to Sony recently I decided to have a look at Capture One as CO is the free raw converter for Sony cameras. Also, because so many people say that CO is WAY better than LR at raw conversion.

I've done some tests between LR and CO, doing nothing but white balance, white point, black point and color noise reduction.  Comparing a number of images I see no advantage to either detail-wise.  There is some color difference and slight contrast difference which is better with one converter on some images and better with the other converter on other images, but the differences are easily adjusted in the raw converters themselves, or in post-processing.

With some structure added in CO there is a marked improvement detail-wise, but this is easily compensated on the LR tiff with Topaz Detail3 (for example).

Which leads me to my question.  Does anyone know what are the adjustments that absolutely should be done in the raw converter, and which are just as well done in post processing? 

My assumption has been that the only adjustments that should be done in the raw converter are white balance and white/black point, and that everything else (noise reduction, sharpening, color adjustments, chromatic aberration, color fringing etc.,) can all be left to post-processing.  I have no other reasons to believe that this is correct except that my tests seem to bare out the assumption.  For example, opening an image in ACR with tonal adjustments and comparing it to the same image that has been opened without tonal adjustments (save for white point / black point) but then processed using the Camera Raw filter with exactly the same settings, shows only very slight differences, only just visible at 1:1 (very slight sharpness difference, slight contrast difference, slight color differences).

This isn't a Capture One v Lightroom question as clearly each has strengths. If my assumption that only basic tonal adjustments should be done in the raw converter is wrong then I would probably use CO for the raw conversion and other basic adjustments, retaining Lightroom for all the other features.  On the other hand, if the bulk of adjustments can be left to post-processing, then I would stick to LR as I can do pretty much everything I want with LR + PS (and plug-ins).

I appreciate your advice!

Robert

Robert

Late to this party, but IMHO, you generally want to get the image as close to finished as possible in the RAW conversion process.  That said, there are times when it is just easier or more practical or only possible, depending on the image correction that needs addressed, to do it post conversion. 

[SeanPerry]

Is anyone using the lovely spaces created by Joseph Holmes? I had used his Ekta Space for years, a gig recently had me revisit and discover his DCam spaces with bespoke tone curve. I have been using since and find them exceptional – his chroma variants are genius. Welcome any thoughts with others experiences… Have never understood why in the ACR pipeline I can render out to whatever I like, but in the LR pipeline I am limited to only three spaces.

http://www.josephholmes.com/propages/AboutRGBSpaces.html

[tho_mas]

Rec2020 primaries are reasonable and cover the Pointer gamut. A LStar-TRC is reasonable, but offers little advantage over the sRGB TRC as Bruce Lindbloom demonstrated in his post describing his BetaRGB. Rec2020 uses a white point of 6500K, which necessitates WB conversions with many profiles using 5K as the white point.

Is a Rec2020 profile with your characteristics available for download and use with Photoshop? Personally, I am satisfied with ProPhotoRGB for my own work and see little reason to change.

Regards,

Bill

PS

Here is a good link regarding the Rec2020 gamut.

Hi Bill,

re TRCs:

I guess we are in agreement that in a high bit RGB workflow we can work with and exchange different TRCs without encountering banding issues...

However, when we think about TRCs and keep in mind the device-dependend origin of the different TRCs (Gamma 2.2 comes from TV/CRT monitors, Gamma 1.8 is more similar to the distribution of luminance in offset prints etc.) there are two TRCs that match the needs of color managed image editing better than the others (IMHO!):
-   a linear TRC as it is the only TRC that assures error-free color blending
-   LStar as it is perceptually uniform – see attachment – and that reduces rounding errors to the mathematically possible minumum (since it uses the distribution of luminance of Lab)

Again... I think all TRCs work fine in a high bit workflow... but I've been using LStar ("ECI-RGB V2") for years and also my monitor is calibrated to LStar for image editing. So this is simply what I personally prefer... and what makes so the most sense to me...

re D65:
As far as the white point goes I think as photographers we don't use absolut colormetric but perceptual and relative colormetric intends for conversions. Too, the ICC-V4 specs require chromatic adaption to D50 for dislayclass profiles ... this is why V4- monitor profiles are actually specified as being D50. Also doesn't matter when softproofing. So I don't think the D65 WP of Rec2020 is a disadvantage... or comes into play at all in any workflow.

A great source for different sets of ICC Profiles (all in V2 and V4 specs) is here:
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/lcms-make-icc-profiles.html
The guy is just about to release a new set of profiles with revised rec709-TRCs, V2-profiles will be „true“ V2 profiles and all profile sets will contain all TRCs (linear, 1.8, 2.0. 2.2, sRGB, rec709, LStar [„labl“]). So there you also get for instance ProPhotoRGB („Large RGB“) with an sRGB-TRC and an LStar-TRC ...

P.S.: another informative site about Rec2020 and the so called "Pointer's Gamut": http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/pointers_gamut.htm

[tho_mas]

What is wrong is to recommend a very large workspace like ProPhoto without being VERY clear on the things to watch out for.  A novice user is very likely to blow the output device gamut and end up with an ugly image with banding or other artifacts and not know why.

100% agree!

Equally, if you intend to make a great deal of adjustments to your image but you know that the image gamut will never exceed sRGB, say, then what is wrong with using sRGB?

nothing is wrong - that's perfectly fine! Now, let's say you have an image that fits into sRGB except for some slightly higher saturated cyan tones. Then you'll process and store it in, say, AdobeRGB. That's fine, too! Next image fits into sRGB except for some slightly higher saturated cyan tones and some slightly higher saturated red tones. Then you'll process and store it in, say, ECI-RGB. That's fine, too! The next image has overall a slightly higher saturation and so you'll process and store it in, say, Hasselblad-RGB. The next image in Rec2020. And the next image in ProPhoto-RGB. And the next image in ACES. That's all fine!
So you have to watch out for every single image that you process in what intermediate color space it may fit. Why?

The other way around...: you make a great deal of adjustments to your image and you know that the image gamut will never exceed sRGB - why not still store it in the actual color space of your RAW-software (where it comes from in any case!) and save it as 1:1 copy of your "original" adjusted RAW-file? Keeping the source profile doesn't hurt :-) And you will store all your "originals" in the very same source-colorspace and first convert to something else by application.

[Robert Ardill]

nothing is wrong - that's perfectly fine! Now, let's say you have an image that fits into sRGB excpet for some slightly higher saturated cyan tones. Then you'll process and store it in, say, AdobeRGB. That's fine, too! Next image fits into sRGB excpet for some slightly higher saturated cyan tones and some slightly higher saturated red tones. Then you'll process and store it in, say, ECI-RGB. That's fine, too! The next image has overall a slightly higher saturation and so you'll process and store it in, say, Hasselblad-RGB. The next image in Rec2020. And the next image in ProPhoto-RGB. And the next image in ACES. That's all fine!
So you have to watch out for every single image that you process in what intermediate color space it may fit. Why?

I think you're exaggerating a bit .  Three workspaces would be entirely enough and so would be two (sRGB and BetaRGB would be my choices).

There is no reason to use this workflow if you don't want to.  The reason I use it is because I aim my workflow to the destination.  So I don't (in general) process my images in the same way for print and web.  It also keeps me focused on the image gamut and where it is going to end up.  If I go straight to a very large workspace, after a while I find that I get lazy and just press buttons and don't even bother to soft-proof.  If I constantly keep the destination in mind then this doesn't happen, and I find that my images end up being better.

What makes this relatively easy is that so much can be done in the raw converter - and of course I will always keep my raw images with their develop settings.  It is true that if I know that I need to do a lot of editing of the image in Photoshop + plug-ins that I will go for the larger gamut working space and then target the destination, simply to avoid having to do the work twice.  However there are things that do (or may) need to be done twice anyway, for example denoise and output sharpen.

You have to remember that I use smart objects, so that I can open the image from LR to Photoshop as a smart object, do things like capture sharpen and some basic corrections that I couldn't do in LR (some adjustment layers say), and then convert to my destination.  As this involves setting the profile in ACR I have the advantage of being able to choose any profile I want (which I cannot do in LR).  So I can even convert to my printer profile if I wish (and of course in that case turn of color management in the print driver).

Alternatively I can use virtual copies in Lightroom if that makes more sense for a particular set of images as I've mentioned before.

Whatever you do, if you want to optimize your colors you will need to keep color management in mind constantly.  If you always go to ProPhoto, say, then you should really have soft-proofing turned on all the time, pretty much, unless you are prepared to make corrections right at the very end of your workflow, prior to output to web or printer (which really is far too late IMO).  And if you are targetting both web and print then you will need to constantly flip your soft-proofing from sRGB to your print profile.  If that's how you want to work then that's totally fine ... there's nothing wrong with it and there's no reason why an image processed using your workflow would be any better or worse than one processed by my workflow. It's just a question of preference and what works best for you.

The other way around...: you make a great deal of adjustments to your image and you know that the image gamut will never exceed sRGB - why not still store it in the actual color space of your RAW-software (where it comes from in any case!) and save it as 1:1 copy of your "original" adjusted RAW-file? Keeping the source profile doesn't hurt :-) And you will store all your "originals" in the very same source-colorspace and first convert to something else by application.

I take it you mean the camera profile, in the case of Capture One or DxO, say?  You can't do this if Lightroom is your raw processor as I'm sure you know.  If the camera profile is matrix-based and is a good one ... well there would be no fundamental reason that I can think of.  It wouldn't suit me because I work towards the destination but it would be fine for your workflow.  If the camera profile is table-based then you would need to make sure that it's a very good profile based on a large swatch or you will likely get interpolation errors.  Cheers,

Robert

[tho_mas]

Whatever you do, if you want to optimize your colors you will need to keep color management in mind constantly.  If you always go to ProPhoto, say, then you should really have soft-proofing turned on all the time, pretty much

I do have gamut warning turned on all the time! I do activate the gamut warning for my monitor profile by default (I don't edit to match my monitor profile, of course, but I want to "see" what I can't see on my monitor :-) ... ) ... and towards finishing I do activate the gamut warning for the PRMG (again just to check... not to edit everything into the PRMG).

I take it you mean the camera profile, in the case of Capture One or DxO, say?  You can't do this if Lightroom is your raw processor as I'm sure you know.

I am absolutely sure that the internal color space of ACR/Lightroom is ProPhoto primaries ... so this is what you are effectively editing in all the time in these two softwares! Setting sRGB for the output does not (!) map everything into sRGB - it's just a relative colormetric conversion from ProPhoto (-primaries) to sRGB! And exactly this is the reason why I would do any colorspace conversion in Photoshop (as it provides more control). Okay, in Lightroom you could process to the sRGB Appearance profile using perceptual intend - in this case everything would be mapped into sRGB ... but I suspect this is not what you are doing...

If the camera profile is matrix-based and is a good one ... well there would be no fundamental reason that I can think of.  It wouldn't suit me because I work towards the destination but it would be fine for your workflow. If the camera profile is table-based then you would need to make sure that it's a very good profile based on a large swatch or you will likely get interpolation errors.

In Capture One all "camera profiles" are table based. And the RAW data gets not converted into these color spaces - the color spaces get assigned to RAW-data! Therefore - by design - it is technically impossible to get clipping in C1 as long as you don't exhaust the color space by unleashed editing (but you would see it in the histogram) and as long as you embed the "camera profile" on export. The design-idea of C1 is very different to Lightroom/ACR... however, the relation of "internal color space" and output color space is basically the same in all RAW converters...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Regarding the colour space, what you see is limited by the colour space of your monitor. Colours outside that gamut will not be correctly rendered on screen. I don't know if ICC profiles have perceptual rendering intent for display. As far as I know V2 display profiles clip, but V4 may have a rendering intent for displays. Someone may chime in to clarify.

So, what colours that can be viewed depends on the monitor used. Rec 2020 is the recommended standard for 4K as far as I know.

Anyway, working in a wide colour space means that there will be colours that you can manipulate but not observe. Using soft proof in Lightroom will indicate such colours.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Using Capture One 9.0.2 I try to export a TIFF with embedded camera profile, so I can check it out in ColorThink but it embeds Adobe RGB.

Any way to embed the Camera ICC? I am working with an IQQ file from my P45+

Best regards
Erik

[tho_mas]

Regarding the colour space, what you see is limited by the colour space of your monitor.

to be more precise: colors are limited by the actual hardware (the monitor) ...

Colours outside that gamut will not be correctly rendered on screen.

to be more precise: colors outside of the monitor's gamut will not be displayed at all ...

;-)

Using Capture One 9.0.2 I try to export a TIFF with embedded camera profile, so I can check it out in ColorThink but it embeds Adobe RGB.

First, check the settings - both "PROCESS RECIPES" and "PROCESS RECIPE" - see attachment. ANd also make sure that only one of the "PROCESS RECIPES" is selected (the one outputting the camera profile).
By default C1 applies AdobeRGB to a process recipe. Under "ICC Profile" in the "PROCESS RECIPE" tab you have to select "embed camera profile".

Too, check the layers tab - see attachment.
When you've applied Color Edits (basic or advanced color editor) on layers it is impossbile to embed the camera profile (because C1 would have to merge two profiles). When working with color edits on layers you have to select a working space for output...

Alternatively... post me a screenshot of your process recipes (both) and of your layer tab ... and I'll guide you to set everything correctly ...