attention color whizes: non-typical sRGB/RGB/ProPhoto question

[joofa]

No.  Please look.  The display is correct.  I can't overemphasize that fact.

Hi,

I prsented my case. Several people independently verified and agreed with the premise under the prerequisites that I stated clearly. It is entirely possible that I have been wrong all along. You don't have to agree with me. You can take up any doubts you have with the makers of these commercial programs.

Sincerely,

Joofa

[MarkM]

•Do the numbers outside the box represent XYZ numbers?

No, it is not XYZ. And, I said that right there in my reply #396 to you.

OK, that's a start. You've put numbers along the outside of the graph. What are those numbers?

(…crickets chirping)

[Farmer]

> Interesting that you should mention Monet.
Yes, the purpose of those three particular names was to give examples of three mane reasons.

> the exact same scene can fall outside of its own gamut if you filter it incorrectly.

Incorrectly or artistically.

But the variations Monet experienced were due to faults with his vision.  He was so shocked by it that he wanted to redo many of his paintings and of course even destroyed a number.

[Farmer]

Hi,

I prsented my case. Several people independently verified and agreed with the premise under the prerequisites that I stated clearly. It is entirely possible that I have been wrong all along. You don't have to agree with me. You can take up any doubts you have with the makers of these commercial programs.

This is impossible since you have not presented your data and methodology.  Whilst they may appear to have come to the same conclusions as you, nothing has been verified.

[joofa]

This is impossible since you have not presented your data and methodology.  Whilst they may appear to have come to the same conclusions as you, nothing has been verified.

Hi,

Please see the attachment to Iliah Borg's first message in this thread. All the data you need is right there in his attachment, and it literarily takes a few seconds to punch in a couple of numbers he has shown.

Sincerely,

Joofa

[Graystar]

Please see the attachment to Iliah Borg's first message in this thread. All the data you need is right there in his attachment, and it literarily takes a few seconds to punch in a couple of numbers he has shown.

No.  Please, several others have independently arrived at the same result that’s in the 3D L*a*b* display.  But they did not use Gamutvision Absolute comparison.  Please look at the display.  It was created with Gamutvision. There is no doubt that it is correct.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg414096#msg414096

[Iliah]

> But the variations Monet experienced were due to faults with his vision.

Those variations started when he was about 65 if memory serves. Look at his painting accomplished before 1905.

[ejmartin]

They are not independent functions—that's what he means. In a perfect world you could independently manipulate the individual cone type; you could find three wavelengths, one for each cone type and send light that would only stimulate each one. But it doesn't work because, with the exception of the far end of the red spectrum there are no wavelengths that only effect one cone. So when you use a green primary with the intention of manipulating the middle cone, you also inadvertently get some of the short cone or the long cone. It's not always a problem because you can often still find the right mix for a match, but for saturated colors it is a problem. He provides a real world example in the book with the calculations, which is convincing, but takes a few pages. (You might be able to find the pages in question by searching the book on Amazon of Google Books for the term: "Unwanted Stimulations" (A term I hear from wife from time to time)

Thanks, I missed this reply earlier.

They are independent functions, just not orthogonal.  It is not necessary that they be orthogonal, just independent.  The only time there is a problem is when different spectra cause the same cone response for all three types -- ie metamerism.

[fdisilvestro]

I agree that for artistic purpose you may not want perfect chromatic adaptation in all cases. There are several photographers that use colored gels over flashes to get particular color effects (Joe McNally comes to mind).

Also, you may have images with different illuminants (like the examples of the inside of the house with an incandescent light and the outside at sunlight) and in these cases, the possibility of selecting different areas with different white balance each looks really interesting.

The part which I fail to grasp is about how to involve different color spaces here. All of the above we can handle today either with color filters over lights (whenever possible) or by blending layers in photoshop (time consuming) but working always in one color space, being AdobeRGB or PhotoshopRGB.

Some possibilities:
- Current color management is not flexible enough as is today and you will have compromises where you loose some saturated colors. An option might be to use the color space that will preserve the saturated colors that interest you as the author of the image (may be that R=G=B is not neutral).

- The possibility to define adaptive color spaces depending on scene content and photographers artistic´s purposes (might be a nightmare to implement)

- Raw converters that allow to select not only different white balance but different color spaces for selected areas of an image. I don´t even know if this make sense or is feasible. I was just thinking in the old days of the darkroom, specifically B&W. Suppose you had a part of the image with normal to high contrast and another with very low contrast, with single graded paper you made compromises, with multigrade paper, you could print different parts of the image with different contrast

These are just ideas that come to mind,

[Farmer]

> But the variations Monet experienced were due to faults with his vision.

Those variations started when he was about 65 if memory serves. Look at his painting accomplished before 1905.

Around then, yes, I agree.

Of course prior to that is purely artistic, and Monet is an excellent example.  My point, though, was that if you're just talking about artistic interpretation then anything is correct.  I disagree with that approach - we're talking science.  Although it's entwined with art in the case of photography, there's a distinction between the parts.  There's no meaning to colour space or adaptation or anything else if you're just going to explain it as artistic interpretation.  There's no basis to compare one with the other.

You might as well apply quadratic equation for your conversion and say it's valid because artistically you like the results.  From that point of view, fine. From a colour science or colour management point of view, not so fine.

[Farmer]

Hi,

Please see the attachment to Iliah Borg's first message in this thread. All the data you need is right there in his attachment, and it literarily takes a few seconds to punch in a couple of numbers he has shown.

Unless you're saying that Iliah's data and methodology is entirely how you arrived at the same conclusion, then this is still pointless.

You keep saying you don't mind if you're wrong - well then post up the data and the method.

[Iliah]

> we're talking science.

Science that suggests to ignore both facts and art is nothing more but a bootleg.

[joofa]

Unless you're saying that Iliah's data and methodology is entirely how you arrived at the same conclusion, then this is still pointless.

You keep saying you don't mind if you're wrong - well then post up the data and the method.

Hi,

Please see the following link when I talked about the same numbers:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg412129#msg412129

Sincerely,

Joofa

[MarkM]

Quote from: MarkM
•Do the numbers outside the box represent XYZ numbers?

Quote from: Joofa
No, it is not XYZ. And, I said that right there in my reply #396 to you.

Quote from: MarkM
OK, that's a start. You've put numbers along the outside of the graph. What are those numbers?

Seriously Joofa, I thought this would be a simple question. What are the numbers on the axis of your graph???

The link you just pointed to only talks about XYZ numbers, but you say that's not what you are plotting ?

[Farmer]

Hi,

Please see the following link when I talked about the same numbers:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg412129#msg412129

Just, in one, single post, provide your data and complete methodology.  Don't reference anything externally.  Otherwise, please don't bother.

[joofa]

The inverse test works reasonably well with the Granger Rainbow posted many pages ago,
ProPhoto RGB blues do not clip when converting AbsCol to Adobe RGB
(within the limits that we can believe in oog marks).

Peter

--

Hi, 

Is what you are saying different than what tho_mas said here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg413712#msg413712

Thanks,

Joofa

[Graystar]

Please see the following link when I talked about the same numbers:

I don’t understand.  I thought we all agree that Adobe RGB is contained within Pro Photo.  Please look at the display in my previous post.  The proof is there.  I can't overemphasize that fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg414096#msg414096

[joofa]

I don’t understand.  I thought we all agree that Adobe RGB is contained within Pro Photo.  Please look at the display in my previous post.  The proof is there.  I can't overemphasize that fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg414096#msg414096

Please call Gamut Vision customer service and ask for a refund 

Joofa

[MarkM]

Quote from: MarkM
•Do the numbers outside the box represent XYZ numbers?

Quote from: Joofa
No, it is not XYZ. And, I said that right there in my reply #396 to you.

Quote from: MarkM
OK, that's a start. You've put numbers along the outside of the graph. What are those numbers?

(Crickets Chirping)

This is a good read from scienceblogs that demonstrates a proper response to unlabeled graphs:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/o_brave_new_world_that_has_suc.php

"But what are the units of the Y axis? What's being measured? I have no idea. I presume it's a stacked percentage of something, but that's unclear. Information produced? Absorbed? Thrown at a wall and forgotten? What kind of information? It's all lumped together and unspecified. Could we have some units, please?"

"This whole chart was built out of some guy's impressions. There are no numbers and no sources and no measurements were made. It puts up a colorful pretense of being quantitative, but there's nothing but vapor and handwaving there."

[Graystar]

Please call Gamut Vision customer service and ask for a refund 

I think you are joking!    This software is very good.  The Absolute displays are very accurate because it was created by experts.  I think you would like Gamutvision.  Their expertise has helped us all to agree that Adobe RGB is fully contained within Pro Photo, as shown in the display I posted earlier.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.msg414096#msg414096