Color management

[mujana]

I've read the pdf that Jim linked and I've watched the Andy Rodney video. Here are my conclusions:

• sRGB is by far the safest choice. It's easy to preview the results and there's less of a chance to screw anything up
• It's hard to quantify the differences in printed output without seeing the printed results first hand, but I have a feeling that the differences are subtle
• In order to see the the greatest difference, one must print on one's own printer and on glossy paper since glossy papers are capable of reproducing the greatest gamut.
• Using a lab may or may not give you the desired result. Much depends on their work flow.
• Using PPrgb future proofs your edits as you wait for a time when monitors and printers are capable of producing extended gamut output
• One needs to own a printer when working inpprgb, as you will need to hard proof your edits to make editing corrections

Am I on the right track? Did I miss anything?

None of your conclusions above are “anything like” my take aways from Andrew’s video, with the exception of bullet #2. And at that, I can tell you first hand that the differences in print a far from subtle.

I think we’re onto something here, though, re your perceptions. If your final destination for images is sRGB-flavored screens / devices, then by all means stick to sRGB as your working color space. You will still have zero idea of what others may be seeing on their devices in terms of your intended presentation. Just be aware that if you do have your work printed at some point, you’ll have thrown away from the get-go a ton of valuable information in your files.

I’m with Jim here. I’d never use sRGB as an editing space. And, careful soft-proofing will one a very long way down the road if your entire system is well calibrated - especially if you’ve come to know your printer’s ink-set and your favorite papers’ gamuts / characteristics.

Rand

I'm still confused: How can you properly edit your work in PPRGB if you can't see what you're doing? Additionally, once the labs start converting to whatever printer/paper gamut, that's throwing another monkey wrench. So in effect, unless you're printing yourself and you can churn out hard proof after hard proof, there's no way to accurately tell what your print will look like.

I understand the confusion. The whole color management part of photography isn' t easy at all. I'm no expert at all and sometimes get confused as well.

Macro guy, do you print yourself?

My situation:

I use DXO PL. The working color space there is either "Classic" (which is AdobeRGB), or "DxO Wide Gamut", which is larger (very large in fact). I always choose "DxO Wide Gamut", and most (all?) newer images are standard opened in this color space. All despite the fact that my monitor is hardware calibrated (Eizo CG2700S) and can not show all color nuances of "DxO Wide Gamut" or ProPhotoRGB. When I send a file to my printer to be printed, I routinely soft proof first. I don't however send files from DxO PL directly to printer. I send them to Qimage One (and from there I send to printer). In DxO PL I can enter/choose paper icc profiles or color space and intent (perceptual or relative). Soft proofing papers gives a pretty accurate impression of what' s out/in gamut of that specific paper (I can simulate paper & ink if I want to). I know it' s pretty accurate because of the already printed files (so yes, that' s also a reference).

I always send files in 16bit Tiff ProPhotoRGB to QimageOne for printing. In Qimage One I can sharpen/adapt size to paper/etc. Also soft proofing possible (again).

What I find remarkable is that when I use AdobeRGB as working color space (all visible on my monitor)...and export for printing in AdobeRGB, the final prints look LESS "good" (even less accurate to monitor!), than following the ProPhoto RGB path. And no, I still don't understand completely why this is the case.

So, if you print yourself....give it a try...and compare prints next to each other and print to screen.

 

[Macro guy]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right. Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

 

[mujana]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

 

[Macro guy]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

It makes sense to get an Adobe RGB monitor and work with the Adobe RGB color space. I don't understand how one can edit in PPRGB without constantly doing hard proofing.

Printing by myself makes no financial sense to me. I don't print often enough to warrant the hassle and the expense. I use a custom lab and they're very good. However, I'm in Thailand, so there is a language barrier to a certain extent. Their English isn't good enough to understand the complexities and nuances and my Thai isn't good enough either. So, the simpler the process can be made, the better the results are going to be.

BTW, the prints I get look fantastic, but it seems that I'm missing out.

 

[mujana]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

It makes sense to get an Adobe RGB monitor and work with the Adobe RGB color space. I don't understand how one can edit in PPRGB without constantly doing hard proofing.

Printing by myself makes no financial sense to me. I don't print often enough to warrant the hassle and the expense. I use a custom lab and they're very good. However, I'm in Thailand, so there is a language barrier to a certain extent. Their English isn't good enough to understand the complexities and nuances and my Thai isn't good enough either. So, the simpler the process can be made, the better the results are going to be.

BTW, the prints I get look fantastic, but it seems that I'm missing out.

Nice country to be. In your case, except for language I guess.

Bottom line is very simple:

If you like your prints that much ("fantastic"), you're not missing out on anything. Keep working as you do, and enjoy your prints!

 

[Macro guy]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

It makes sense to get an Adobe RGB monitor and work with the Adobe RGB color space. I don't understand how one can edit in PPRGB without constantly doing hard proofing.

Printing by myself makes no financial sense to me. I don't print often enough to warrant the hassle and the expense. I use a custom lab and they're very good. However, I'm in Thailand, so there is a language barrier to a certain extent. Their English isn't good enough to understand the complexities and nuances and my Thai isn't good enough either. So, the simpler the process can be made, the better the results are going to be.

BTW, the prints I get look fantastic, but it seems that I'm missing out.

Nice country to be. In your case, except for language I guess.

Bottom line is very simple:

If you like your prints that much ("fantastic"), you're not missing out on anything. Keep working as you do, and enjoy your prints!

I would have if I hadn't started this thread LOL Ignorance is bliss!

 

[Wayne Larmon]

If I remember correctly, the Adobe RGB gamut was designed to be the largest color space that was practical to display on a monitor that could hold most of the gamut of offset printers.

Yes, it was a compromise. It can't reproduce the gamut of Ektachrome and Kodachrome, for example.

Oooh, I never had ICC profiles of film gamuts. Can you point me to where they are? (I'm using Argyll CMS utilities to generate 3D gamuts and they only work with v2 iCC profiles. They choke on v4 profiles. (Or they did when I was working on my gamut plots several years ago.))

There were color working spaces designed to contain the colors of films, e.g. the Holmes Ekta-Space (plotted versus Adobe RGB at ICC View):

I have a file of it, but can't recall where I got it.

I just did a Google search for

Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc Joseph Holmes

and got to Joseph Holmes's web page about profiles. He sells sets of profiles, but 'Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc' us available as a free download on his Available Profile Products sales page (scroll down to 9B).

Mr. Holmes is a lot pickier about suitable working spaces than most of us are on DPReview. I'm still learning color science but am fascinated with gamuts/color spaces.

From looking over his tutorial pages, I think I was correct to always work in 16 bit ProPhoto whenever editing camera scanned images. If I don't have his sets of working spaces profiles (that are designed for different films) and an understanding of how to use them. (It has been several years since I studied color science and I'm a bit fuzzy now with the theorys.)

Thank for the tip about Joseph Holmes! And to ICC View . I made my own system of generating 3D gamut plots from ICC profiles before I knew that ICC View existed. It looks like they use the same set of ArgyllCMS utilities that I use.

Wayne

 

[mujana]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

It makes sense to get an Adobe RGB monitor and work with the Adobe RGB color space. I don't understand how one can edit in PPRGB without constantly doing hard proofing.

Printing by myself makes no financial sense to me. I don't print often enough to warrant the hassle and the expense. I use a custom lab and they're very good. However, I'm in Thailand, so there is a language barrier to a certain extent. Their English isn't good enough to understand the complexities and nuances and my Thai isn't good enough either. So, the simpler the process can be made, the better the results are going to be.

BTW, the prints I get look fantastic, but it seems that I'm missing out.

Nice country to be. In your case, except for language I guess.

Bottom line is very simple:

If you like your prints that much ("fantastic"), you're not missing out on anything. Keep working as you do, and enjoy your prints!

I would have if I hadn't started this thread LOL Ignorance is bliss!

Indeed it can be.

 

[DavidMillier]

I don't print myself. Otherwise, I could try this by printing seeing the results or edit by hard proofing.

This process sounds to me like the film days where you really didn't know what the color of your images actually was if you were shooting negative film and unlessnyou had some well established point of reference within your image, it was difficult to argue with the lab. That's why I shot slide film, so I would at least have a point of reference and even then, there was a lot of back and forth until the print looked right.

I remember those days. I also always shot slide film. But back then I never printed (or let them printed).

Digital was supposed to solve that and to a great extent, it did. However, if we're to edit blindly, we're back to this back and forth with the lab until the print looks right.

Well, no experiences with labs in general (only with “pro” labs that accepted AdobeRGB). Printing myself is another story. AdobeRGB works fine. Just use a calibrated monitor that can be used for AdobeRGB (ofcourse preferably almost 100%). You then can see what you’re doing. Seems simple enough (?).
No, it’s not like you have work in complete blindness. Especially not when you get to know files/monitor/printer matching. That can need some time, but once I knew/tried again and again, now printing regularly is almost as easy as shooting an image.
If you don’t want to print yourself, then I would choose a proper/ well known lab that does accept the best quality files….and stick with that lab

Apart from beginner hassles, I certainly and very much recommend printing yourself!

It makes sense to get an Adobe RGB monitor and work with the Adobe RGB color space. I don't understand how one can edit in PPRGB without constantly doing hard proofing.

Printing by myself makes no financial sense to me. I don't print often enough to warrant the hassle and the expense. I use a custom lab and they're very good. However, I'm in Thailand, so there is a language barrier to a certain extent. Their English isn't good enough to understand the complexities and nuances and my Thai isn't good enough either. So, the simpler the process can be made, the better the results are going to be.

BTW, the prints I get look fantastic, but it seems that I'm missing out.

Just groping in the dark here a bit...

I thought the point of using a wide gamut space like Prophoto was to leave plenty of headroom so editing transformations don't clip anything.

Then when you output the image to screen or print it get converted into a smaller, more appropriate space.

And that means when editing, you are viewing the results of your edits in prophoto translated into whatever space your monitor uses. So you technically you are editing blind in the prophoto space but it doesn't matter because you view the results in sRGB or whatever.

It's like a chain of transformations. You don't need to see the impact of your edits in the prophoto space, only what pops out the end of the chain. And you can edit happily away because you edit in real time in prophoto and see the results in real time in sRGB/Adobe1998.

What is actually happening under the hood in prophoto is irrelevant, you never see that directly, it's just an enabling space...

 

[JimKasson]

• Higher end monitors and printers are able to reproduce the Adobe RGB gamut.

Monitors, yes. Printers, no.

If I remember correctly, the Adobe RGB gamut was designed to be the largest color space that was practical to display on a monitor that could hold most of the gamut of offset printers.

Yes, it was a compromise. It can't reproduce the gamut of Ektachrome and Kodachrome, for example.

Oooh, I never had ICC profiles of film gamuts. Can you point me to where they are? (I'm using Argyll CMS utilities to generate 3D gamuts and they only work with v2 iCC profiles. They choke on v4 profiles. (Or they did when I was working on my gamut plots several years ago.))

When I was measuring the gamut of films, I was working on gamut mapping algorithms as a color scientist for IBM. This was in the early 90s, when the ICC was just getting organized. So I don't have ICC profiles. Indeed, the data I gathered has itself be consigned to the dustbins of history.

 

[Macro guy]

• Higher end monitors and printers are able to reproduce the Adobe RGB gamut.

Monitors, yes. Printers, no.

If I remember correctly, the Adobe RGB gamut was designed to be the largest color space that was practical to display on a monitor that could hold most of the gamut of offset printers.

Yes, it was a compromise. It can't reproduce the gamut of Ektachrome and Kodachrome, for example.

Oooh, I never had ICC profiles of film gamuts. Can you point me to where they are? (I'm using Argyll CMS utilities to generate 3D gamuts and they only work with v2 iCC profiles. They choke on v4 profiles. (Or they did when I was working on my gamut plots several years ago.))

When I was measuring the gamut of films, I was working on gamut mapping algorithms as a color scientist for IBM. This was in the early 90s, when the ICC was just getting organized. So I don't have ICC profiles. Indeed, the data I gathered has itself be consigned to the dustbins of history.

Jim, how do you edit your images in the wide gamut space if you can't really see what you're doing? Rather, you can't see how your edits affect the colors that are out of gamut for your monitor?

 

[Rand 47]

Yup…. “fantastic” is a relative term. And I get what you’re saying - “until I started this tread.”

There has been a ton of really good info in this thread. Jim, and NAwlins Contrarian, in particular, and the recommendations to further material from Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe.

I’m more a “user” than “deep understander” type. I’ve gone down this path to the extent that I now have a solid color-managed work flow. Without understanding how any of it works “under the hood,” I am at a point where my much repeated printing experience allows:

• Darn good screen-to-print matches w/o a ton of hard proofing
• Using ColorThink Pro, I now look at the file to be printed and compare its gamut to the gamut of various papers I like to see how the file’s gamut compares. I’ll sometimes rule-in or rule-out papers doing this.
• I’ve become good at soft-proofing. It is almost more “art” than science IMO. The better I’ve gotten, and the more familiar I am w/ the papers I use, the need for hard proofing goes dramatically down most times.
• I produce prints for others that have a tendency win-out over the competition in regional photo contests. Consistently. It’s almost weird. I think I know why. A well crafted print will suck the viewer in and I think that has an unconscious impact on judges!

Here’s an item that hasn’t come up yet… Over the past few years in using a state of the art color-managed work flow, including a consistent lighting station for evaluation of the prints - my “eye” has been trained and gotten better at seeing small differences in color, tonal transitions, and other aspects of what a “fine print can look like.” This goes toward your “until” comment. I’ve become a more refined viewer of not only my work, but the work of others. A better photographer, even. And for me, this is a BIG DEAL. Here’s an example. A few years ago I went up to see Jim Kasson’s show in Monterey. Knowing “what I know” I was even more blown away by the quality of his work, and the technical expertise needed to create prints of such excellence, than I might otherwise have been. Jim’s expertise in service to his art. Would the substance of his work been “OK to good” w/o the expertise and care in printing? Sure it would. But what I saw was well beyond what might be considered the norm for even “good prints.” As a result my appreciation and enjoyment was enhanced.

When I share what I’ve learned with others (camera club presentations, primarily) I often counter the argument that “good enough is good enough” with a statement of my own. “In the pursuit of your art/craft, why would you leave any image quality on the table if it’s there to be had?”

For me this is a huge part of the fun and fascination of my photography addiction.

Rand

 

[JimKasson]

• Higher end monitors and printers are able to reproduce the Adobe RGB gamut.

Monitors, yes. Printers, no.

If I remember correctly, the Adobe RGB gamut was designed to be the largest color space that was practical to display on a monitor that could hold most of the gamut of offset printers.

Yes, it was a compromise. It can't reproduce the gamut of Ektachrome and Kodachrome, for example.

Oooh, I never had ICC profiles of film gamuts. Can you point me to where they are? (I'm using Argyll CMS utilities to generate 3D gamuts and they only work with v2 iCC profiles. They choke on v4 profiles. (Or they did when I was working on my gamut plots several years ago.))

When I was measuring the gamut of films, I was working on gamut mapping algorithms as a color scientist for IBM. This was in the early 90s, when the ICC was just getting organized. So I don't have ICC profiles. Indeed, the data I gathered has itself be consigned to the dustbins of history.

Jim, how do you edit your images in the wide gamut space if you can't really see what you're doing? Rather, you can't see how your edits affect the colors that are out of gamut for your monitor?

I think I answered that elsewhere in this thread. I use the sample tool, soft proofing, and hard proofing. Hard proofing works especially well when the gamut of the target printer is smaller than that of the proofing printer, as is the case for me where the output is web offset. And web offset is the most expensive to hard proof.

book proofing - the last word

blog.kasson.com

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I just did a Google search for

Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc Joseph Holmes

and got to Joseph Holmes's web page about profiles. He sells sets of profiles, but 'Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc' us available as a free download on his Available Profile Products sales page (scroll down to 9B).

Thanks. I seemed to recall getting it for free from what seemed like an authorized source, but I hesitate to redistribute such things. It's kind of my my favorite printer test image, Bill Atkinson's. At least at times he's made it freely available, and I downloaded what I think is the full original, an 87 MP, 100 MB TIFF in some sort of atypical color encoding. But I don't feel comfortable making that full file available to others.

Mr. Holmes is a lot pickier about suitable working spaces than most of us are on DPReview. I'm still learning color science but am fascinated with gamuts/color spaces.

I tend to suspect that some of these color working spaces were devised when the available software tools were much more limited regarding 16-bit images and/or less well-behaved regarding color management. In today's world, except for final output, I don't see much point in editing photos in other than

From looking over his tutorial pages, I think I was correct toalways work in 16 bit ProPhoto whenever editing camera scanned images.

Agreed.

If I don't have his sets of working spaces profiles (that are designed for different films) and an understanding of how to use them. (It has been several years since I studied color science and I'm a bit fuzzy now with the theorys.)

Thank for the tip about Joseph Holmes! And to ICC View . I made my own system of generating 3D gamut plots from ICC profiles before I knew that ICC View existed. It looks like they use the same set of ArgyllCMS utilities that I use.

ICC View is a great little tool. However, it does not work with v. 4 ICC profiles, which are becoming more common. It would be great if the author updates it, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Thank for the tip about Joseph Holmes! And to ICC View . I made my own system of generating 3D gamut plots from ICC profiles before I knew that ICC View existed. It looks like they use the same set of ArgyllCMS utilities that I use.

ICC View is a great little tool. However, it does not work with v. 4 ICC profiles, which are becoming more common. It would be great if the author updates it, but I'm not holding my breath.

The problem is using

iccgamut Create a gamut file or x3dom file of the color gamut of an ICC profile

viewgam Convert one or more gamuts into a X3DOM 3D visualization file. (An X3DOM 3D visualization file is HTML that you can look at with your browser.)

from ArgyllCMS. These are what do the heavy lifting to convert from an ICC profile to HTML that is a rotatable 3D gamut. They choke on v4 profiles (or they did--I haven't looked at ArgyllCMS for several years.)

My program uses the ArgyllCMS utilities to make the 3D graphic and then uses Perl regexes to re-wrangle the HTML headers and footers. I suspect this is what the author of ICC View also did (he credits ArgyllCMS). (I distilled the logic to use iccgamut and viewgam to generate 3D graphs in HTML from an ICC profile to a simple .bat file).

Again, here is an example: RSWOP and Adobe RGB. Then do Crtl-U to view source. The X3D that the ArgyllCMS utilities generated is the complicated part of the HTML.

Maybe we need to contribute some money to the ArgyllCMS project to inspire Graeme Gill to add v4 support.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I just did a Google search for

Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc Joseph Holmes

and got to Joseph Holmes's web page about profiles. He sells sets of profiles, but 'Ekta_Space_PS_5,_J._Holmes.icc' us available as a free download on his Available Profile Products sales page (scroll down to 9B).

Thanks. I seemed to recall getting it for free from what seemed like an authorized source, but I hesitate to redistribute such things. It's kind of my my favorite printer test image, Bill Atkinson's. At least at times he's made it freely available, and I downloaded what I think is the full original, an 87 MP, 100 MB TIFF in some sort of atypical color encoding. But I don't feel comfortable making that full file available to others.

Mr. Holmes is a lot pickier about suitable working spaces than most of us are on DPReview. I'm still learning color science but am fascinated with gamuts/color spaces.

I tend to suspect that some of these color working spaces were devised when the available software tools were much more limited regarding 16-bit images and/or less well-behaved regarding color management. In today's world, except for final output, I don't see much point in editing photos in other than

ProPhoto? Do you mean he was too worried about banding and posterization that doesn't happen now when we use high bit or floating point?

Wayne

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Mr. Holmes is a lot pickier about suitable working spaces than most of us are on DPReview. I'm still learning color science but am fascinated with gamuts/color spaces.

I tend to suspect that some of these color working spaces were devised when the available software tools were much more limited regarding 16-bit images and/or less well-behaved regarding color management. In today's world, except for final output, I don't see much point in editing photos in other than

ProPhoto? Do you mean he was too worried about banding and posterization that doesn't happen now when we use high bit or floating point?

Yes in part. ProPhoto RGB is so huge relative to sRGB or even Adobe RGB that there's a much higher risk of artifacts like banding when you edit lightness and/or color on an image encoded in ProPhoto RGB at 8-bit precision. With 16-bit precision it's not a problem.

And a corollary is: I remember the time when more that a few common photo editing tools were 8-bit precision only--and that was probably more than a few years after Holmes devised Ekta-Space.

 

[JimKasson]

Mr. Holmes is a lot pickier about suitable working spaces than most of us are on DPReview. I'm still learning color science but am fascinated with gamuts/color spaces.

I tend to suspect that some of these color working spaces were devised when the available software tools were much more limited regarding 16-bit images and/or less well-behaved regarding color management. In today's world, except for final output, I don't see much point in editing photos in other than

ProPhoto? Do you mean he was too worried about banding and posterization that doesn't happen now when we use high bit or floating point?

Yes in part. ProPhoto RGB is so huge relative to sRGB or even Adobe RGB that there's a much higher risk of artifacts like banding when you edit lightness and/or color on an image encoded in ProPhoto RGB at 8-bit precision. With 16-bit precision it's not a problem.

I think that for PS users, what Adobe calls 16-bit precision (really 15 bits plus one state) should be the default for photo editing.

And a corollary is: I remember the time when more that a few common photo editing tools were 8-bit precision only--and that was probably more than a few years after Holmes devised Ekta-Space.

Unfortunately true, but those days are long behind us now.

 

[Macro guy]

Ok, I've taken one of my images (this one) because it's got the blues, the yellows and the greens and ran it through the paces.





I ran it through the RAW converter, setting the color space to wide gamut and I converted it to a 16bit tiff. I set the working color space in my image processor (I use Corel paintshop pro) to wide gamut and I opened the tiff in the app. It looked somewhat different even on my sRGB monitor. The yellows looked brighter and there was more green and yellow highlights. I'm going to take that file to the lab tomorrow and have it printed. I have a problem converting this file to sRGB to save it as a jpeg. I've tried exporting the file, setting the colorspace back to sRGB and opening the file again to no avail. Does anyone know how to do this?

 

[mujana]

Ok, I've taken one of my images (this one) because it's got the blues, the yellows and the greens and ran it through the paces.



I ran it through the RAW converter, setting the color space to wide gamut and I converted it to a 16bit tiff. I set the working color space in my image processor (I use Corel paintshop pro) to wide gamut and I opened the tiff in the app. It looked somewhat different even on my sRGB monitor. The yellows looked brighter and there was more green and yellow highlights. I'm going to take that file to the lab tomorrow and have it printed. I have a problem converting this file to sRGB to save it as a jpeg. I've tried exporting the file, setting the colorspace back to sRGB and opening the file again to no avail. Does anyone know how to do this?

I probably don’t understand, but you want to convert to sRGB and save it as a jpeg?? Stupid question, but why?