What's the point of using color spaces exceeding the visible spectrum?

[digitaldog]

My point was that because any color profile can be selected (assigned) for a working space, some people like you and even the author of this Adobe tutorial use the term "Working Space" instead of  the "Color Space" of a color profile.

A working space is a color space. But its a particular kind, one used for image editing and archiving, based on a well behaved theoretical (emissive) device. Its Quasi-Device Independent. An output space is just that (a color space that describes some printer). In input space is also a color space of a capture device like a scanner or camera. So a working space is a color space. But not all color spaces are working spaces.

[Coloreason]

People use the term to refer to color spaces that are designed to be used as working space such as AdobeRGB(1998). Just because you can assign your printer profile as the working space in photoshop's color settings doesn't make it a working space any more than eating soup with a fork makes a fork a spoon.

I think Andrew answered the question perfectly well up above in response #10.

I perfectly understand the reasons but I disagree with you and believe that the use of the term "Working spaces" is confusing when used for that purpose. A "Common standard" color space is a much more appropriate term. For example, you could have sRGB selected as your working space in the Color Settings, your document color profile could be AdobeRGB, and you could be also editing this document often soft proofing it with CMYK US Web Coated Swap v2. By your definition all of these profiles are working spaces and this makes it confusing answering the question about what working space you are currently using.
I also disagree that assigning a color profile like your printer's profile as a working space doesn't make it as such. It does technically and practically. If you more often need to examine than edit untagged photos how they will look printed, it is more practical to assign your printer profile as your working space than soft proofing it because that way it is less work. Another example, I use my monitor profile as a working space in Photoshop because most of the time I create images with 3D programs and want to bring them to color management. All major 3D programs are not color managed so I have to make color choices referring to my monitor's color space and save untagged files. When I open them in Photoshop and convert them to a "common standard" color space that you call "working space" like sRGB they convert appropriately from the color space of my monitor so, my monitor color profile in this case becomes a perfectly legitimate working space.

[digitaldog]

I also disagree that assigning a color profile like your printer's profile as a working space doesn't make it as such. It does technically and practically. If you more often need to examine than edit untagged photos how they will look printed, it is more practical to assign your printer profile as your working space than soft proofing it because that way it is less work.

Working spaces are well behaved (R=G=B). That's only the case with these theoretically constructed spaces. And you would not assign a profile to any document unless it has no ICC profile associated with it or (far less likely) its the wrong profile association. All properly conducted color space conversions (to such a space) would assign the profile as the conversion takes place.

IF everyone on the planet had properly tagged images, Adobe could remove the Assign Profile command from Photoshop. It would be unnecessary.

Another example, I use my monitor profile as a working space in Photoshop because most of the time I create images with 3D programs and want to bring them to color management.

Because your 3D software isn't smart enough to be color managed. It produces an untagged document which is previewing the numbers by simply sending them to your display. It has no idea your display is calibrated, it has no idea what a color space is. You are treating this data like Photoshop 4 and earlier when there was no color management.

When I open them in Photoshop and convert them to a "common standard" color space that you call "working space" like sRGB they convert appropriately from the color space of my monitor so, my monitor color profile in this case becomes a perfectly legitimate working space.

Actually it doesn't. Its simply a source profile to define the color numbers. Not until you convert from display to RGB working space do you gain the benefits of an RGB working space unless you're darn lucky and the display behaves in all color space where R=G=B is neutral. You should be assigning the display profile to the data (because its untagged thanks to the 3D app), then converting to sRGB. Assign and Convert are quite different beasts.

[Schewe]

I perfectly understand the reasons but I disagree with you and believe that the use of the term "Working spaces" is confusing when used for that purpose.

Open Photoshop...go to the Color Settings dialog and look at the term Adobe used: Working Spaces. So, when you are talking about editing in Photoshop, would it not be wise to use the same term that Adobe used? A Working Space can be RGB, CMYK, Gray Gamma or Dot Gain...calling them anything other than a Working Space would be confusing...

[Coloreason]

Working spaces are well behaved (R=G=B). That's only the case  ...

I understand perfectly what these color spaces are, the question is about calling them "Working spaces" when the section in the Color Settings of the Adobe products is also called "Working Spaces" and allowing you to choose any other profile. I don't mind one of the two remains being called "Working Spaces" but not both because this is confusing, isn't it? And that was the whole point of my input here. If only the profiles circled in red are considered as "Working Spaces" then that section should not be named "Working Spaces" or on the other hand if we agree "Working Spaces" is a good name for that section then the profiles circled with red should be called something else.

... Actually it doesn't. Its simply a source profile to define the color numbers. Not until you convert from display to RGB working space do you gain the benefits of an RGB working space unless you're darn lucky and the display behaves in all color space where R=G=B is neutral. You should be assigning the display profile to the data (because its untagged thanks to the 3D app), then converting to sRGB. Assign and Convert are quite different beasts.

I'm not sure if you understood me here. Having an image that was created referring to monitor's color space opened in Photoshop when the monitor profile is selected as a working space in the Color settings and then Edit > Convert to sRGB is the same if you first Edit > Assign the monitor profile to the image and then Edit > Convert to sRGB. Both ways do exactly the same thing but the second way is more work if you do that all the time.

[Coloreason]

Open Photoshop...go to the Color Settings dialog and look at the term Adobe used: Working Spaces. So, when you are talking about editing in Photoshop, would it not be wise to use the same term that Adobe used? A Working Space can be RGB, CMYK, Gray Gamma or Dot Gain...calling them anything other than a Working Space would be confusing...

From that section as I showed with the image in the previous post you can select your printer, monitor, and all available profiles for a working space and because of that they also should be called "Working spaces" which makes perfect sense. The problem is that some people consider and call only certain color spaces (in red on the image) as working and this is confusing. I perfectly understand that these color spaces are different than the rest and should be called with a special name but that name should not be the same as the name of the section containing all other profiles.
As I said how would you answer the question: What is your current working space if you have this:

For example, you could have sRGB selected as your working space in the Color Settings, your document color profile could be AdobeRGB, and you could be also editing this document often soft proofing it with CMYK US Web Coated Swap v2. ...

[Schewe]

As I said how would you answer the question: What is your current working space if you have this:

"For example, you could have sRGB selected as your working space in the Color Settings, your document color profile could be AdobeRGB, and you could be also editing this document often soft proofing it with CMYK US Web Coated Swap v2. ..."

sRGB...

[digitaldog]

I understand perfectly what these color spaces are, the question is about calling them "Working spaces" when the section in the Color Settings of the Adobe products is also called "Working Spaces" and allowing you to choose any other profile. I don't mind one of the two remains being called "Working Spaces" but not both because this is confusing, isn't it?

Working space is a term to describe the color space of the image you are editing: working space = editing space. RGB working spaces, specifically filtered by Adobe, installed by Adobe and what one should be editing in are a different story. They are simple, matrix profiles based on theoretical RGB emissive devices and are well behaved. You can edit in a non well behaved color space but why would you? The entire CMS architecture in Photoshop from 5.0 on is to divorce the display as your editing space and instead use a small group of these manufactured well behaved spaces for edit and archive.

I'm not sure if you understood me here. Having an image that was created referring to monitor's color space opened in Photoshop when the monitor profile is selected as a working space in the Color settings and then Edit > Convert to sRGB is the same if you first Edit > Assign the monitor profile to the image and then Edit > Convert to sRGB. Both ways do exactly the same thing but the second way is more work if you do that all the time.

The 3D app has no way to tag the data. You have to Assign the display profile. That's the role of the Assign Profile command. Unless you setup Photoshop where the RGB Working Space is set for that display profile (and that's a bad idea), Photoshop has no way to know what the RGB values of that data relate to. The RGB Working Space selection play a role as the assumption of all untagged data even if that isn't the case. In the settings you show, Photoshop would assume all untagged data is sRGB but that's not the case in the 3D image. It has to be assigned the display profile first, then it has to be converted to an RGB Working Space like sRGB (or you lose an incredible feature of well behaved RGB working spaces).

[Peter_DL]

... then the profiles circled with red should be called something else.

How about:  Common Standard Working Spaces.

Hope this helps,
although semantics are not my strengths.

Peter

--

[fdisilvestro]

I like the term used in the book Real World Photoshop CS3 by Blatner, Chavez & the late Fraser: "Built-in Working Spaces".

There is an important distinction in the color settings dialog in Photoshop: If you select "Fewer Options" then only the Built-in Working Spaces will appear in the drop downs for RGB, CMYK, Gray & Spot. When you select "More Options", Photoshop lets you select also Output spaces as your working spaces. So if seeing all those output spaces in the drop downs annoy you, just select "Fewer options".

Now, why is it recommended to use built-in working spaces? Well, first, as it has been previously mentioned by Andrew Rodney, they are Gray balanced, meaning R=G=B will always produce a neutral gray.

The other important property is that they are aproximately perceptually uniform. Quoting Real World Photoshop CS3 by Blatner, Chavez & Fraser:

Perceptually uniform...Meaning that changing each channel´s numeric values in the image by the same increment results in about the same degree of visual change, no matter whether it´s in the highlights, the midtones, the shadows, the pastels, or the saturated colors. Again, device spaces generally don´t work that way.

Instead of using an output space as working space it would  be better to use a built-in working space and use Soft-proofing.

[Coloreason]

How about:  Common Standard Working Spaces...

I like the term used in the book Real World Photoshop CS3 by Blatner, Chavez & the late Fraser: "Built-in Working Spaces". ...

Both will work and anything else too that is not exactly "Working space". Though if I have a say, I prefer the shortest possible like just "Common" or "Built-in".

[Coloreason]

Working space is a term to describe the color space of the image you are editing: working space = editing space. ...

But  here's the confusion from this, Schewe in his post #26 replied to my question "sRGB" and that answer defies your definition that working space = editing space because in that case the selected sRGB profile in the color settings doesn't have any effect on the editing of the image which is with Adobe RGB profile.

... You can edit in a non well behaved color space but why would you? The entire CMS architecture in Photoshop from 5.0 on is to divorce the display as your editing space and instead use a small group of these manufactured well behaved spaces for edit and archive. ...

I agree with you, especially if you rely on the numbers of the color values to make sense, and I don't edit in device specific color spaces - in the example I gave the monitor color profile selected for the working space affects only the conversion to "common standard/bult-in working space " for example sRGB and has no further effect on the editing - as you know the color profile selected for a working space in the Color settings does not affect images with profiles. But back to your question, hypothetically speaking,  I can think of a situation where editing in monitor color space can make sense. If you are creating art from scratch say, a painting using tools like brushes, and picking colors using the color palettes without caring what the numbers for those colors are, and if you have a well calibrated monitor and a profile that describes correctly the meaning of the colors as perceived by the eye, the artwork when saved with the monitor profile, at any time later can be perfectly converted to a wider "common standard" space. I think this can be especially useful with the newer wider gamut monitors where the artist  doesn't want to limit his color palette to a narrower common color space and at the same time doesn't want to use wider color space like Prophoto RGB and deal with colors that monitor cannot show. I think this could be a valid strategy for creating and archiving artwork for the future when all monitor will be with much wider gamut.

The 3D app has no way to tag the data. You have to Assign the display profile. That's the role of the Assign Profile command. Unless you setup Photoshop where the RGB Working Space is set for that display profile (and that's a bad idea), Photoshop has no way to know what the RGB values of that data relate to. The RGB Working Space selection play a role as the assumption of all untagged data even if that isn't the case. In the settings you show, Photoshop would assume all untagged data is sRGB but that's not the case in the 3D image. It has to be assigned the display profile first, then it has to be converted to an RGB Working Space like sRGB (or you lose an incredible feature of well behaved RGB working spaces).

May be I wasn't clear but as I said more than once, I assign my monitor profile for the working space in the Color settings. This assigns the monitor profile to the untagged image for display purpose with the video card but doesn't affect the file and the image remains to be reported as untagged. The image is displayed properly as intended because it was created referring to the same monitor and the monitor profile describes correctly how monitor displays colors. Displaying of the image is the same as if choosing Edit > Assign and choosing the monitor profile - the video card does exactly the same but in addition to that the profile (the meaning of the colors) is embedded in the file when saved.  So, in both cases when after that you choose Edit > Convert to sRGB the result is identical. And if one have to do this operation most of the time I don't see as to why assigning the monitor profile as a working space in the color settings is a bad idea - to say it again in other words, it is just a tool for conversion and has no effect on the editing.

[digitaldog]

But  here's the confusion from this, Schewe in his post #26 replied to my question "sRGB" and that answer defies your definition that working space = editing space because in that case the selected sRGB profile in the color settings doesn't have any effect on the editing of the image which is with Adobe RGB profile.

Both sRGB and Adobe RGB are working spaces! You don’t have to be currently editing in one for that to be a fact.

But back to your question, hypothetically speaking,  I can think of a situation where editing in monitor color space can make sense. If you are creating art from scratch say, a painting using tools like brushes, and picking colors using the color palettes without caring what the numbers for those colors are, and if you have a well calibrated monitor and a profile that describes correctly the meaning of the colors as perceived by the eye, the artwork when saved with the monitor profile, at any time later can be perfectly converted to a wider "common standard" space.

No, it doesn’t make sense. Its not well behavied. Its highly device dependant and has lots of idiosyncrasies of this single output device. There is zero reason to start a blank document in such a space. Create one in sRGB. Or Adobe RGB (1998) if you want a wider gamut (you can always convert an iteration back to sRGB for posting to the web). The only time the display profile should ever, ever be accessed in Photoshop is in the case you outline. You have untagged data, created by a stupid non color management app that you want to maintain the color appearance in a color managed app. You assign the display profile in Photoshop to maintain the color appearance then you should convert to a well behaved RGB working space like sRGB.

[Coloreason]

Both sRGB and Adobe RGB are working spaces! You don’t have to be currently editing in one for that to be a fact....

I understand that this is a fact, but what I'm saying that it is an unfortunate and confusing fact and I'm starting to wonder as to why people don't see it as such. If someone says "I use this profile for my working space" it is so general that it means almost nothing. It could be the space of the color profile selected in the Color Settings, or the embedded or soft proofing color profile of the image. It could be also someone talking about profiles like monitor or printer profiles assigned as a working space in the color settings (I gave a couple of examples when this is practical and saves time) and such person has full right to say it that way - what else he can say - "I'm using non-working color space for a working color space"? It sounds funny isn't it?

...
No, it doesn’t make sense. Its not well behavied. Its highly device dependant and has lots of idiosyncrasies of this single output device. There is zero reason to start a blank document in such a space. ...

I know and agree that it is not well behaved, highly device dependent and has lots of idiosyncrasies, however I'm not sure about the zero reasons. The color spaces of most wide gamut monitors are quite different than Adobe RGB. In some areas they may extend beyond while on others undercover it. In the example I gave with an artist creating artwork from scratch simply by picking colors and painting, editing in the monitor color space will not clip it to the colors contained in both the monitor's and Adobe RGB color spaces and at the same time will insure that colors that cannot be displayed on the monitor will not be used. In such case I'm curious what could be the problem? I know that what appears to be a perfect gray may not show as perfectly equal RGB numbers and some other idiosyncrasies form that nature with certain tools, but as I said if the artist creates the artwork without any use of numbers and such tools, he can create a perfect artwork  simply by picking colors visually and painting. If the  monitor calibration and profile are done properly, artwork created in such way should be perfectly converted with preserving the color appearance to other wider color spaces.

[digitaldog]

If someone says "I use this profile for my working space" it is so general that it means almost nothing.

How so? You now know the numbers and their associated scale. That be true if it were a working space or not. Numbers without a scale are menainless. So the sentence you propose provides some information. Why the conversation comes up is questionable but the statement is complete.

It could be the space of the color profile selected in the Color Settings, or the embedded or soft proofing color profile of the image.

Yes it could. So what? If I tell you my working space preferences in Photoshop are set such that ProPhoto RGB is loaded as my preferred working space, that tells you one thing. It can be set as such and I can open a document in sRGB and tell you this. Again, each piece of information is complete. It doesn’t need to referece the other. You know what I prefer to use for my editing space (for new documents), what I expect Photoshop to assume for untagged documents (which I never encounter because they are bad news). In another sentence, I’ve told you the working space of the data I’m currently working on (sRGB) which is completely separate from the working space preferences I have set.

It could be also someone talking about profiles like monitor or printer profiles assigned as a working space in the color settings (I gave a couple of examples when this is practical and saves time) and such person has full right to say it that way - what else he can say - "I'm using non-working color space for a working color space"? It sounds funny isn't it?

Not at all. You seem to expect the term working space to carry over as an ambiguous tag and that’s not useful. If you tell me you have assigned your display profile to the 3D data because its untagged, I fully understand the numbers and their associated scale (color space). Photoshop does too and handles the data and color appearance correctly. If you tell me you opened a document from ACR in ProPhoto, that working space has nothing to do with the 3D image.

I know and agree that it is not well behaved, highly device dependent and has lots of idiosyncrasies, however I'm not sure about the zero reasons.

Give me more. Other than telling the color managed application the meaning of the numbers, why would you continue to use such a space? Its not well behavied. Its unqiue to your display based on the day you made that profile (which may be different in a few weeks). Its useless outside ICC aware applications. So inside an ICC aware app, what’s the resaon you’d stick with this color space?

The color spaces of most wide gamut monitors are quite different than Adobe RGB.

Yes they are just as the color space of sRGB gamut monitors can be quite different than sRGB. All I have to do is calibrate the display with targets that don’t match sRGB and guess what? Its not sRGB. Its questionable any modern LCD that isn’t using P22 phosphors produce sRGB as its defined. And they don’t have to! That’s WHY we divorce the working space from the display. If your data is in sRGB, its the same on any one’s machine. Your display profile describes one color space of one display on one day that may be different the next. Not so with sRGB or any of the synethic working spaces. That’s why we use them!

[Schewe]

But  here's the confusion from this, Schewe in his post #26 replied to my question "sRGB" and that answer defies your definition that working space = editing space because in that case the selected sRGB profile in the color settings doesn't have any effect on the editing of the image which is with Adobe RGB profile.

It's simple...sRGB is the Working Space (notice the caps) as determined by Photoshop. Adobe RGB is the editing space of a specific document as long as Use Embedded Profile is set as the CM policy even if the Working Space in Photoshop is different.

You're making this much more difficult than it is...the Working Space is the color space as set for one of the color modes in Photoshop. The editing space can be the Working Space or a different color space if using the embedded color space in a document.

[Peter_DL]

Both will work and anything else too that is not exactly "Working space". Though if I have a say, I prefer the shortest possible like just "Common" or "Built-in".

But then it is easy to built-in virtually any working space, so that it appears among the "common standard working spaces" cycled with red, by just dropping the icc profile in the corresponding Adobe > subfolder  

... but what I'm saying that it is an unfortunate and confusing fact and I'm starting to wonder as to why people don't see it as such. If someone says "I use this profile for my working space" it is so general that it means almost nothing. It could be the space of the color profile selected in the Color Settings, or the embedded or soft proofing color profile of the image. It could be also someone talking about profiles like monitor or printer profiles assigned as a working space in the color settings …

Trying to understand what is so confusing for you…
Are you possibly not aware that Photoshop – as a color managed environment – does a permanent RelCol conversion on-the-fly from the selected or assigned Working space to the monitor profile. For most general purposes, this equalizes the choice of Working space. Not talking about oog scenarios, etc. here.

Peter

--

[Coloreason]

If someone says "I use this profile for my working space" it is so general that it means almost nothing.

How so? You now know the numbers and their associated scale. That be true if it were a working space or not. Numbers without a scale are menainless. So the sentence you propose provides some information. Why the conversation comes up is questionable but the statement is complete.

I was talking about the meaning (information) of the word "working" in that statement not the information the rest of the statement gives. Because the section in the color preferences is called "working" spaces, it makes perfect sense to use the term "working" for any profile that can be selected there but by your definition it shouldn't and this makes the complication and requires additional explanation. If instead of "working", the term was something else like "common" or "built-in" or whatever to mean certain group of profiles, it would be very clear what this means and no further explanation would be required.

It could be the space of the color profile selected in the Color Settings, or the embedded or soft proofing color profile of the image.

Yes it could. So what?

Well, here's what happened - a long thread about what exactly the term "working" means and what should be the proper use of it. Hopefully I'm the only idiot in the world who can't get it, but just looking through this thread I see several posts from other people requiring additional explanation to communicate properly mostly because of this confusion with the term "working".

....Not at all. You seem to expect the term working space to carry over as an ambiguous tag and that’s not useful. If you tell me you have assigned your display profile to the 3D data because its untagged, I fully understand the numbers and their associated scale (color space). Photoshop does too and handles the data and color appearance correctly. If you tell me you opened a document from ACR in ProPhoto, that working space has nothing to do with the 3D image.

If I say, I use the color profile of my printer as a working space this should mean only that I have selected it as a working space in the color preferences and nothing else - this makes things clear. What makes thins complicated is when you and the others insist that I cannot call it a working space or that doesn't make it a working space and what not because working spaces means only a certain group of profiles. Remember, I'm not talking about what is right or wrong but simply communicating a certain setup.

...Give me more. Other than telling the color managed application the meaning of the numbers, why would you continue to use such a space? Its not well behavied. Its unqiue to your display based on the day you made that profile (which may be different in a few weeks). Its useless outside ICC aware applications. So inside an ICC aware app, what’s the resaon you’d stick with this color space?

Yes they are just as the color space of sRGB gamut monitors can be quite different than sRGB. All I have to do is calibrate the display with targets that don’t match sRGB and guess what? Its not sRGB. Its questionable any modern LCD that isn’t using P22 phosphors produce sRGB as its defined. And they don’t have to! That’s WHY we divorce the working space from the display. If your data is in sRGB, its the same on any one’s machine. Your display profile describes one color space of one display on one day that may be different the next. Not so with sRGB or any of the synethic working spaces. That’s why we use them!

About this, let me put it in a form of a question. I create a new document, I assign my monitor profile to the image, I pick colors from the color palette and paint an artwork with the paint brush, I'm happy how it looks, when I finish I convert from my monitor profile to Prophoto RGB or choose to save the image with the monitor profile embedded and convert to Prophoto RGB at a later time. The questions is, will the colors change when I convert to Prophoto RGB? If not what's the problem with this workflow?

[Coloreason]

It's simple...sRGB is the Working Space (notice the caps) as determined by Photoshop. Adobe RGB is the editing space of a specific document as long as Use Embedded Profile is set as the CM policy even if the Working Space in Photoshop is different.

You're making this much more difficult than it is...the Working Space is the color space as set for one of the color modes in Photoshop. The editing space can be the Working Space or a different color space if using the embedded color space in a document.

Well, not sure why you say I'm making it more difficult when you basically all the time say what I'm trying to say, the words in bold from your quote are exactly what I'm trying to repeat many times in other words about what a proper definition should be. And I agree that your answer "sRGB" to my question in post #26 is the only correct answer.

... In other words, I thought all a working space (profile) is simply an option in the color settings of these programs to choose for a special propose one of the color spaces(profiles) available.

But according to Digitaldog and others, that's not it, they say working space = editing space and only a special group of profiles should be actually called "working" spaces.

[Coloreason]

But then it is easy to built-in virtually any working space, so that it appears among the "common standard working spaces" cycled with red, by just dropping the icc profile in the corresponding Adobe > subfolder  
...

Where a "built-in" or if you like "common" color profiles appear on the sections of the menu is not a problem as long as we refer to them with a term not used for other things like the "Working spaces" section in the color preferences.

Trying to understand what is so confusing for you…
Are you possibly not aware that Photoshop – as a color managed environment – does a permanent RelCol conversion on-the-fly from the selected or assigned Working space to the monitor profile. ...

Here's the confusion, because I don't know what you mean when you say " selected or assigned Working space" I cannot tell if your statement is correct.
If by saying " selected or assigned Working space" you mean the color profile selected for a working space in the color preferences, then your statement is incorrect.
I would say it this way: Photoshop  does a permanent RelCol conversion on-the-fly from the displayed color space of the image to the monitor profile. I think this makes it more clear. Displayed color space of the image could be the soft proofing color space, if soft proofing is off then the color space of the embedded profile will be used for displaying, and if there is no embedded profile the image will be displayed in the color space of the color profile selected for the working space in the Color preferences.