Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic  (Read 124401 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #420 on: August 27, 2014, 08:35:18 pm »

NEVER say never, Tony  ;)
I send my files for 20x30 canvas in sRGB because my print lab says so. If any of you pro-choice guys would be willing to prove your point and bankroll me to switch to a real pro lab, that charges 2-3 times more, hey, I would be eternally grateful.
What lab would that be and what price are you paying (if you're going to ask us to find an alternative)?
That you are forced to use an inferior working space to convert to the output space is (again) justification for the mistakes Gary and Will have spoken? Don't you want to work with a color space that has more distance between pixels?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #421 on: August 27, 2014, 08:39:59 pm »

What lab would that be and what price are you paying (if you're going to ask us to find an alternative)?...

CG Pro Prints, $39.99 for a 20x30 canvas with finished back.

garyfong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #422 on: August 27, 2014, 08:41:34 pm »

Hi everybody.

I've emailed Jeff at x-rite to address Andrew Rodney's claims that Will Crockett is a liar about being an x-rite coloritti.  We have screen captured and saved all of Andrew Rodney's comments here and on the YouTube video where he says that Will Crockett is not an X-rite coloritti, and that Mr. Crockett may be lying.

Having spoken to Will, the reason he's not on the web page is because Mr. Rodney is on the same page, and he didn't want to appear on the same page.

I will let you know what Jeff says.

Gary Fong
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #423 on: August 27, 2014, 08:42:29 pm »

NEVER say never, Tony  ;)

I send my files for 20x30 canvas in sRGB because my print lab says so. If any of you pro-choice guys would be willing to prove your point and bankroll me to switch to a real pro lab, that charges 2-3 times more, hey, I would be eternally grateful.

P.S. And no, I am not Mark's grandmother ;)
I accept that this forum is something akin to a group of commercial lawyers scrutinising a contract however if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am using the term 'arbitrarily'.
I bet you, pounds on pennies, that you do not use Gary Fong's flat earth approach to 'non-colour management' and that the decision you have made has nothing to with the hopelessly scrambled non-logic underpinning Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output.
In other words - were you to explain your rationale it might actually make sense!  :D

Tony Jay
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #424 on: August 27, 2014, 08:47:28 pm »

... Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output...

Tony, in fairness to Mr. Fong, he clearly stated numerous times that if you have access to devices capable of handling Adobe RGB to use it by all means.

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #425 on: August 27, 2014, 09:12:28 pm »

Tony, in fairness to Mr. Fong, he clearly stated numerous times that if you have access to devices capable of handling Adobe RGB to use it by all means.
He is not talking about the choice of output colourspace but rather to capture in sRGB and then use sRGB right through one's workflow on the ridiculous assumption that if your monitor is incapable of displaying the gamut potentially captured by the camera then one should not even go there but restrict oneself to sRGB.
I use sRGB as an output colourspace all the time - just not for nonsense non-logical reasons that Gary does.
Otherwise I prefer to work in as large a colourspace as I can - ProPhotoRGB.
The fact that no monitor or printer in existence today can either display or print the gamut of ProPhotoRGB is neither here nor there.

Knowledge is power.
However Gary Fong has taken a deliberate course of obfuscation trying to keep his intended audience ignorant of facts that might allow them to make decisions based on appropriate knowledge rather than the hopeless non-logic that he is shovelling.
Just as Andrew Rodney mentioned: shooting handheld with a 400 mm f2.8 will most often result in hopelessly blurred images - ascribing the result to the rotation of the earth is the dippy part.
Gary Fong is telling us that the result of our blurred images is the earth's rotation.
According to Gary Fong's logic no-one should ever use ProPhotoRGB because no hardware device can 'handle' it.

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 09:17:35 pm by Tony Jay »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #426 on: August 27, 2014, 09:20:06 pm »

Tony, I agree to disagree. Do not know about you.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #427 on: August 27, 2014, 09:22:35 pm »

He is not talking about the choice of output colourspace but rather to capture in sRGB and then use sRGB right through one's workflow on the ridiculous assumption that if your monitor is incapable of displaying the gamut potentially captured by the camera then one should not even go there but restrict oneself to sRGB.
Yes, that's how I read it too, funny how Slobodan seems to miss that critical part of this thread and attempts to come to his defence.
Quote
I use sRGB as an output colourspace all the time - just not for nonsense non-logical reasons that Gary does.
Me too (and many others here). NO one is disputing the need for that color space. I don't think anyone is saying there is a perfect or ideal working space (or there would only be one).
Slobodan continues to miss the point of why this tread was created in the first place, the silly, technically incorrect video Gary (and now Will) have inflicted on new users or those that only know a little less about color, color management and printing then they do! That's why the topic title is New color management stand up comic, they are so wrong about so many items I assumed it was a bad joke.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #428 on: August 27, 2014, 09:28:06 pm »

...funny how Slobodan seems to miss that critical part...

I did not miss it, I support it. That is, the part: "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB... otherwise, if you know what you are doing, i.e., have devices that can exploit it and know how to convert, go ahead and use Adobe RGB - or even better, wider color space like ProPhoto RGB."

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #429 on: August 27, 2014, 09:30:56 pm »

I did not miss it, I support it. That is, the part: "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB... otherwise, if you know what you are doing, i.e., have devices that can exploit it and know how to convert, go ahead and use Adobe RGB."
You missed it again! The message has merit, the way the message was presented was technically wrong in multiple areas. I asked once, I'll ask YOU again: If two wrongs don't make a right, does half a dozen or more wrongs make a right? In correctly telling people "If you do not want to have one more thing to worry about in your photography, stick to sRGB..." you present concepts about color theory and color management that are utterly wrong, how is that OK? It isn't. Why do you continue to act like it is OK to confuse and, OK, lie to the audience?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #430 on: August 27, 2014, 09:31:13 pm »

Firefox is my go-to browser but I ran across some profiles recently that it would refuse to use.
- One was a stock profile for my Benq monitor (v2, stock from Benq, no errors in Profile Inspector).
- The other was the CX_Monitor_weird profile on the colorwiki (v2, only error is internal/external name mismatch).
Looking through the bug database, it appears that there are some bug fixes and improvements being made to Firefox/qcms, albeit slowly. You could open a bug report and provide the profiles, if you can be bothered creating an account at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/.

From past experience, lcms's response time is a whole lot faster than Firefox in this regard though.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Revised post
« Reply #431 on: August 27, 2014, 09:35:35 pm »

Perceptual rendering could be tried (it is not available with sRGB unless one is using the ver 4 profile as Jeff described.
It's perfectly possible to create a perceptual gamut mapped ICCV2 output profiles that map from sRGB to the printer gamut, and tools to do so are available (ArgyllCMS).

In fact, your tests are indicative of colorimetric mapping - if correct sRGB/AdobeRGB to printer perceptual gamut mapping was used (or better yet, image specific gamut mapping - essential in the case of creating a ProPhoto perceptual mapping), then the differences would be a lot more subtle - you wouldn't get the obvious "blocking up" effect.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 10:02:51 pm by GWGill »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #432 on: August 27, 2014, 09:43:23 pm »

You missed it again! The message has merit..

I did not miss it the first time, nor again. Some of you guys keep switching from disputing the explanation (which is ok to dispute) to disputing the message (which I happen to agree with, and even you) Tony apparently disputed the message itself.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #433 on: August 27, 2014, 09:46:57 pm »

I did not miss it the first time, nor again. Some of you guys keep switching from disputing the explanation (which is ok to dispute) to disputing the message (which I happen to agree with, and even you) Tony apparently disputed the message itself.
I've not read anything from Tony that supports that or that he is doing anything but disagreeing with the Fong flat earth color theories as he just expressed: Reply #425 on: Today at 08:12:28 PM » (Knowledge is power.)
I agree to disagree. Do not know about you.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #434 on: August 27, 2014, 10:11:01 pm »

Andrew, check my post #424 to see where I disagreed with Tony (that Gary "exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output").

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #435 on: August 27, 2014, 10:21:37 pm »

Andrew, check my post #424 to see where I disagreed with Tony (that Gary "exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output").
You only partially quoted Tony @ Reply #424. I believe he (Tony) is spot on in terms of Gary's misinformation, again the crux of this discussion:

Quote
I bet you, pounds on pennies, that you do not use Gary Fong's flat earth approach to 'non-colour management' and that the decision you have made has nothing to with the hopelessly scrambled non-logic underpinning Gary Fong's interpretation that exhorts everyone to use sRGB from input to output.

But let's move on, this is getting OT, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 10:23:51 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #436 on: August 27, 2014, 10:35:42 pm »

Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible. This has been discussed in these parts in the past.
Hmm. I can't really agree that that explanation is useful or accurate.

The one thing cameras do is produce RGB values. It's interpreting that RGB value as a human color where things get interesting. They don't have a gamut in the sense that output devices have a gamut, because if a camera R/G or B value is saturated you can simply reduce the exposure to bring it into range. But cameras typically have spectral sensitivities that are not the same as human eyes, so their judgement of what is a metameric match or not is typically different to ours - there will be colors that we see as distinct that the camera sees as being the same, and visa-versa. There are an infinite number of ways of creating a profile that converts from the camera RGB to XYZ values, but given any particular one, there can be XYZ values that the camera can produce that are outside the spectrum locus, and XYZ values inside the spectrum locus that the camera cannot produce. The range of XYZ values that a camera + profile can produce does set a gamut limit, but it is just a consequence of the spectral sensitivity differences to the human eye, plus the choice of error tradeoffs made in the profile.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #437 on: August 27, 2014, 10:44:15 pm »

But there is, and it's Gary's point, which if he avoided his explanation would be pretty sound for a certain percentage of the camera-owning public. The reason to restrict yourself to sending sRGB is that you are my grandmother. She's going to pull images right off her card and send them to her friends — probably as full-res 12MB attachments unless some friendly email client fixes for her.

It's an input referred vs. output referred thing. There's nothing wrong with rendering an image into an output space like sRGB for display or printing. But if you want to keep the full gamut of what you've captured, you need to keep it in the camera RGB space or convert it to a wide gamut  colorspace.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #438 on: August 27, 2014, 10:46:17 pm »

It's interpreting that RGB value as a human color where things get interesting. They don't have a gamut in the sense that output devices have a gamut, because if a camera R/G or B value is saturated you can simply reduce the exposure to bring it into range.
I agree, and believe I said that.
Quote
But cameras typically have spectral sensitivities that are not the same as human eyes, so their judgement of what is a metameric match or not is typically different to ours - there will be colors that we see as distinct that the camera sees as being the same, and visa-versa.
I agree, and believe I said that too (Luther-Ives condition), there are colors the camera 'see's' we don't and vise versa.
Quote
There are an infinite number of ways of creating a profile that converts from the camera RGB to XYZ values, but given any particular one, there can be XYZ values that the camera can produce that are outside the spectrum locus, and XYZ values inside the spectrum locus that the camera cannot produce.
I agree, and believe I said that. (The point is that if you think of camera primaries you can come to many incorrect conclusions because cameras capture spectrally. The camera color space differs from a more common working color space in that it does not have a unique one to one transform to and from CIE XYZ. 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 therefore an approximation.)
Quote
The range of XYZ values that a camera + profile can produce does set a gamut limit, but it is just a consequence of the spectral sensitivity differences to the human eye, plus the choice of error tradeoffs made in the profile.
I agree, and believe I said that too (Raw image data is in some native camera color space, but it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. The same thing could be said about a color film negative. Someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones. There are better and worse choices, but no single correct conversion (unless the “scene” you are photographing has only three independent colorants, like when we scan film).)
Quote
I can't really agree that that explanation is useful or accurate.
That's the bit I don't understand, based on the comments above and below  ;D
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 10:54:25 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

MarkM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 428
    • Alaska Photographer Mark Meyer
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #439 on: August 27, 2014, 10:51:19 pm »

It's an input referred vs. output referred thing. There's nothing wrong with rendering an image into an output space like sRGB for display or printing. But if you want to keep the full gamut of what you've captured, you need to keep it in the camera RGB space or convert it to a wide gamut  colorspace.

You're preaching to the choir with me. And to be fair, I haven't tried explaining it to grandma in terms of input/output referred spaces. I encourage you to drop by sometime and try this argument with her over green bean casserole.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27   Go Up