Does a raw file have a color space?

[bjanes]

I was told I was being silly earlier in the thread by taking like a lawyer. But there's so much fudge factor here, we might as well end this by agreeing to disagree. But the color geeks have said pretty clearly that a non colorimetric Raw file isn't in a color space.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are in a state of denial.

RikWalowit wrote:

<<Does a raw file have a color space?>>

Fundamentally, absolutely YES

Thomas Knoll wrote:

The camera color space differences from a more common working color space in that it does not have a unique one-to-one transform to and from CIE XYZ space. 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 an approximation because of this.

Chris Murphy wrote:

So yes a camera (and thus a Raw file) has a color space.

Case rested. Res ipsa loquitur

Why argue further with people who disregard the opinion of even their own experts and do not respond to reason?

[digitaldog]

You are in a state of denial.

RikWalowit wrote:

<<Does a raw file have a color space?>>

Fundamentally, absolutely YES

Thomas Knoll wrote:

The camera color space differences from a more common working color space in that it does not have a unique one-to-one transform to and from CIE XYZ space. 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 an approximation because of this.

Chris Murphy wrote:

So yes a camera (and thus a Raw file) has a color space.

Case rested. Res ipsa loquitur

Why argue further with people who disregard the opinion of even their own experts and do not respond to reason?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you're either in the same state or just "Have to be right".

Jack wrote:

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.

A purist might argue that a color space not based on colorimetry is not really a color space because it is not an assignment of numerical values to colors, defining colors as a human sensation. In the standards committees we decided it is useful to be able to talk about non-colorimetric color spaces so we allow them and use “colorimetric color spaces” when appropriate.

That Thomas says "fundamentally" we'll ignore, it makes what you're saying easier to accept.  

This is of course a totally black and white argument, everyone totally agrees with you that Raw is a color space, lets dismiss what Jack and Iliah are saying.

Case rested. OK, James, you're right, Jack is wrong, Iliah is wrong, Schewe is wrong, you're right. OK, feel better? Can we move on?

[Schewe]

Case rested. OK, James, you're right, Jack is wrong, Iliah is wrong, Schewe is wrong, you're right. OK, feel better? Can we move on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not so fast my fine doggy friend...our good friend Mr. Janes hasn't answered my simple question (nor the opening question of the thread)...does raw have a color space?

I've read through the entire thread and can't really find any single, simple statement that he does..he wanders around (and says he thinks I remind him of  Joseph Goebbels which is kinda a cowardly way of calling me a Nazi) but to my reading, he STILL hasn't said what he thinks and defines what HE thinks a "color space" is.

[tgphoto]

Don't let Mr. Janes raise your blood pressure, Jeff.  He's from Lake Forest, which, well, pretty much sums it up.  There must be something in the water to the north of us that gives its residents a delusional superiority complex

Of course, Lake Forest is relatively close to the Windy City.  If Mr. Janes truly has a set of brass ones, why doesn't he offer to meet with you in person, perhaps in a place with sufficient resources, and perhaps a good bottle of wine, and the two of you hash out this argument like a couple of color scientists.

Michael could act as referee and Chris could film the entire meeting of the minds.  It could even be offered as a Luminous Landscape download called "The Great Color Space Shootout".

What do you say, Mr. Janes?

[Josh-H]

Michael could act as referee and Chris could film the entire meeting of the minds. It could even be offered as a Luminous Landscape download called "The Great Color Space Shootout".

Worth its weight in Gold :-)

But seriously.. this thread.. has been interesting.. but its probably time it was put to bed as it has started to get a little personal and warranted or not its never a good thing to thrash these things out in a public forum.

[Ray]

...but its probably time it was put to bed as it has started to get a little personal and warranted or not its never a good thing to thrash these things out in a public forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is it not a good thing to thrash such matter out in public? This is at least the second time this topic has emerged in the past few months. If you don't sort things out and get a general concensus, the topic keeps re-emerging.

[Josh-H]

Why is it not a good thing to thrash such matter out in public? This is at least the second time this topic has emerged in the past few months. If you don't sort things out and get a general concensus, the topic keeps re-emerging.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with that.. its when it gets 'personal' that its best taken off the forums. If its on topic then its all good.

[bjanes]

Why is it not a good thing to thrash such matter out in public? This is at least the second time this topic has emerged in the past few months. If you don't sort things out and get a general concensus, the topic keeps re-emerging.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

I tried that approach. I sent Andrew an e-mail with the same essay that I eventually posted and suggested that perhaps he should consult his technical experts for an opinion. However, he did not respond.

The reason the topic recurs, is that these mafia "experts" keep making the same unqualified and misleading statements. This time around, we had a pretty good discussion that was joined by some true experts. I think I've make my point, which is supported by Thomas Knoll and Chris Murphy.

Iliah Borg summed up the substance of the matter:

"For me however the true meaning of the discussion is whether it is possible to build an accurate camera profile using ICC-type approach or not; even if for a particular light source. RIT and our own experiences both suggest resounding "no". That makes the methods used by Adobe look sub-optimal and some folks feel bad about that defending their beloved."


Bill

[bjanes]

Not so fast my fine doggy friend...our good friend Mr. Janes hasn't answered my simple question (nor the opening question of the thread)...does raw have a color space?

I've read through the entire thread and can't really find any single, simple statement that he does..he wanders around (and says he thinks I remind him of  Joseph Goebbels which is kinda a cowardly way of calling me a Nazi) but to my reading, he STILL hasn't said what he thinks and defines what HE thinks a "color space" is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

See my post #51, and also post #94. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I think with proper qualification, one could say that raw does or does not have a color space. It is better to discuss the scientific principles involved rather than making an unqualified blanket statement that a raw file can't have a color space since it is grayscale.

[bjanes]

Don't let Mr. Janes raise your blood pressure, Jeff.  He's from Lake Forest, which, well, pretty much sums it up.  There must be something in the water to the north of us that gives its residents a delusional superiority complex

Of course, Lake Forest is relatively close to the Windy City.  If Mr. Janes truly has a set of brass ones, why doesn't he offer to meet with you in person, perhaps in a place with sufficient resources, and perhaps a good bottle of wine, and the two of you hash out this argument like a couple of color scientists.

Michael could act as referee and Chris could film the entire meeting of the minds.  It could even be offered as a Luminous Landscape download called "The Great Color Space Shootout".

What do you say, Mr. Janes?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do not respond to ad hominem attacks other than to deplore them. FWIW, I've lived in Chicago for more years than in Lake Forest. How would you feel if I stated that your statements were invalid because you are from Chicago and are most likely a racist and gangster? That is not my view--I think Chicago is a great city and I thoroughly enjoyed my years living there.

[digitaldog]

Ray,

I tried that approach. I sent Andrew an e-mail with the same essay that I eventually posted and suggested that perhaps he should consult his technical experts for an opinion. However, he did not respond.

Ah, so its the lack of a response (something that makes even more sense now) that has you all up in arms and going after the so called pixel mafia.

You obviously missed all the posts (some would say too many) I contributed to this set of threads with information from various experts who would also ignore your emails if they knew how you behaved in public forums.

The reason the topic recurs, is that these mafia "experts" keep making the same unqualified and misleading statements.

That sound you may have heard was me throwing up. Misleading statements. Give us a break.

This time around, we had a pretty good discussion that was joined by some true experts. I think I've make my point, which is supported by Thomas Knoll and Chris Murphy.

Gee, where did they come from? And they only took your position part way. If you think you made your point, can you go away now and let us suffer in the huge humiliation you've subjected us to? We are not worthy! That sound was me throwing up again. What a mess.

Iliah Borg summed up the substance of the matter:

"For me however the true meaning of the discussion is whether it is possible to build an accurate camera profile using ICC-type approach or not; even if for a particular light source. RIT and our own experiences both suggest resounding "no". That makes the methods used by Adobe look sub-optimal and some folks feel bad about that defending their beloved."

He summed it up FOR YOU (he also said Raw wasn't colorimetric data, then Jack said.... Never mind, we've seen this all before, you just don't want to accept it. Its pretty obvious that the only reason you started all this was to be "right" so even when we try to make the child feel good and say "good boy, you're right (even if we don't fully believe it), you've got to continue acting like a little boy. What on earth did you contribute here other than acting like a spoiled child? I'm embarrassed now that I contacted the experts who would trash your emails in a second in an attempt to provide some useful data on the subject. This thread should be closed!

[tgphoto]

I do not respond to ad hominem attacks other than to deplore them. FWIW, I've lived in Chicago for more years than in Lake Forest. How would you feel if I stated that your statements were invalid because you are from Chicago and are most likely a racist and gangster? That is not my view--I think Chicago is a great city and I thoroughly enjoyed my years living there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Ad Hominem" eh?  So what, you're now a Latin Professor as well as a Color Scientist AND Camera RAW Evangelist?

Your previous posts in this thread have included a certain degree of "ad hominem", Mr. Janes.

I find it humorous that you are so quick to strike back with the good disciple mantra, though.

[bjanes]

He summed it up FOR YOU (he also said Raw wasn't colorimetric data, then Jack said.... Never mind, we've seen this all before, you just don't want to accept it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't believe your selective quoting. You quote experts who agree with you and completely ignore those who don't, even when their statements are directly quoted back to you. I give up.

In a previous post, I said I had more respect for you when you published the responses from Knoll, Murphy, et al. But now I have to retract that statement, since you have backtracked when you received a couple more opinions, completely ignoring the qualifications that these latter experts placed on their statements. In my opinion, you are merely trying to save face (as was noted in the DPReview thread).

You say I only want to prove that I am correct, but I have said more than once that depending on one's definitions, one could reasonably conclude that raw does or does not have a color space. I've already acknowledged your viewpoint in that area, so how can you say that I am hellbent on proving that I am right?

Your initial unqualified statement that raw did not have a color space because it is grayscale is not logical.

[Tamlin]

This discussion is way out of my league and have turned into a flamewar. It will surely be closed. Hopefully I can get some useful answers before its closed. I'm not here to discuss, but to listen. Its not often I have a chance of asking leading experts in color management like Andrew Rodney.

Background:

I have a small business where we have to do our proofing ourselves. We make our own marketing material and uses pictures both for print (aRGB) and internet (sRGB). Since our photography skills is limited to "point and click", we need others to take pictures for us. We have rented studio, photographer and model for this purpose last year. On occation, we have borrowed a Cannon 400D camera for taking pictures of our work in the field. Some pictures have been bought over the internet from various sites as well.

Since we are not taking the pictures ourselves, we are at the mercy of the photographer, and since we are a small business, errors can cost relatively much.

The print service offers fresh printer profiles and paper type, so we can do softproofing at least.

Still, its important to know what we are doing and why, and when I see people with this much knowledge unable to reach a middle ground, I get uncertain of my own understanding of this.

If anyone could point out my misunderstanding in this, I'd be greatful:

Raw:
My understanding is that this is the digital equivalent of a negative. It contains no colors until its "developed" or processed. Colors and colorspaces are assigned upon conversion and there are no colors or colorspaces before that, only raw data that can be translated into colors. Even the colors are not a an unchangable illuminant, since the color itself depends on the color space you assign to it.
Raw is not very standardized and can differ from camera to camera.

Colorspace:
In my work, I use the one defined by CIE. Its my understanding that its a theoretical (since impression of colors differ from eye to eye) mathematical expression of colors which are within the visible spectrum of the eyes.

Color spaces have clear borders defined by gamut inside CIE. The CIE borders represent visible colors for the eyes, though colors reach beyond that. If it doesn't have defined borders, its not a color space.

Since I work with different white points for print and internet, and also have different color spaces, raw should be my preferred choice. I can alter white point without loss of bit depth and color gamut. Especially since I need to softproof the images anyway. It gives me more flexibility to make the pictures as I want, since I have no skills in taking them myself.

[papa v2.0]

Does a raw file have a colour space?

So what the out come Yes or No

Can the forum moderator add a poll feature( as seen in other forums) so we all can vote.

[digitaldog]

If anyone could point out my misunderstanding in this, I'd be greatful:

Raw:
My understanding is that this is the digital equivalent of a negative. It contains no colors until its "developed" or processed. Colors and colorspaces are assigned upon conversion and there are no colors or colorspaces before that, only raw data that can be translated into colors. Even the colors are not a an unchangable illuminant, since the color itself depends on the color space you assign to it.
Raw is not very standardized and can differ from camera to camera.

I think it would be useful (depending on the behavior of some to be unnamed) if you started a new post with these excellent questions. In the meantime however, you should probably read this piece Jack and I wrote for the ICC which should help in understanding the differences in rendering and encoding (and the differences in scene and output referred colorimetry):

http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf

[digitaldog]

Does a raw file have a colour space?

So what the out come Yes or No
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.... No... Yes.... No.... She's my daughter, she's my sister.... Slap.

[Tamlin]

I think it would be useful (depending on the behavior of some to be unnamed) if you started a new post with these excellent questions. In the meantime however, you should probably read this piece Jack and I wrote for the ICC which should help in understanding the differences in rendering and encoding (and the differences in scene and output referred colorimetry):

http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks! I think this is what I've been looking for! Its crucial to us to get this right, so its much appreciated.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

As a non-expert I have been following this thread eagerly, hoping for illumination (with or without a Color Space). For the past couple of thousand posts it has seemed as if every poster is either (1) arguing for one or another definition of "color space" or (2) accepting the idea that there may be different definitions used by different people (even by "experts").

I decided to make an inquiry of one more Expert in the field, the esteemed Humpty Dumpty, and here is the conversation as well as I can recall it:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

[bjanes]

Your previous posts in this thread have included a certain degree of "ad hominem", Mr. Janes.

I find it humorous that you are so quick to strike back with the good disciple mantra, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A good point, Jeff, but there are differences. TGPhoto's post was completely ad hominem with no supporting logic or facts. Perhaps the intent of my Goebbels comparison escaped you. I had become frustrated by your habit of repeating the same thing over and over again (broken record), while failing to respond to arguments put forth by others. As you may recall, Goebbels said if you tell an untruth 1000 times, people will begin to believe it. Not to say that your assertions were lies, but merely incomplete and unqualified.