JPEG vs RAW dynamic and color range

John King said:

pris said:

but I will have to add to disagreement. I shoot JPEG, use that same sRGB you so strongly advise against, and never have this problem with green, distorted red etc, that you describe. More than that, and most importantly - this workflow (JPEG, sRGB) is fairly common, probably even the most common, and it's not like we regularly see those weird color deviations...

Click to expand...

You will never see what I am talking about if you work only within an 8 bit colour space, and never leave an sRGB colour space.

Click to expand...

John, your claim that colors are getting distorted, color casts appear etc because of working in sRGB and not aRGB can be verified in MEASURABLE terms. Colors can be checked by numbers, in any colorspace. Color casts can be seen in numbers, not just in terms of seeing on the screen or print. I am sure you know that - and I am saying that to point out that measuring colors as I do regularly since I mostly do my color corrections and some other PP in LAB colorspace, I know there are no such casts and distortions as you say.

I know it's a long-standing belief of yours, but you are essentially saying that everyone who works in sRGB doesn't obtain right colors. That's stretching ti way too far - sRGB is the most commonly used colorspace, and it's not like we don't see just about zillion images all over the world, with unobjectionable colors.

Before you drop another load of numbers and theoretic musings on me, think about it this way: are you saying that if we take the same image, I start working on it in sRGB and you apply your workflow, mine will have unavoidable color casts and yours won't? This is quite easy to check...

That's impossible as the jpg is just the RAW data compressed a bit - you can't get more information where none exists

It might be that your RAW converter just needs a bit more help, but you'll always be able to recover data better from a RAW than a jpg,

Nick

G'day again Pris

pris said:

John King said:

pris said:

but I will have to add to disagreement. I shoot JPEG, use that same sRGB you so strongly advise against, and never have this problem with green, distorted red etc, that you describe. More than that, and most importantly - this workflow (JPEG, sRGB) is fairly common, probably even the most common, and it's not like we regularly see those weird color deviations...

Click to expand...

You will never see what I am talking about if you work only within an 8 bit colour space, and never leave an sRGB colour space.

Click to expand...

John, your claim that colors are getting distorted, color casts appear etc because of working in sRGB and not aRGB can be verified in MEASURABLE terms. Colors can be checked by numbers, in any colorspace. Color casts can be seen in numbers, not just in terms of seeing on the screen or print.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can be. I have given you the numbers. If you download the images I posted in reply to Ricardo and open them in the appropriate colour space, you will see the different numbers. Both PPRGB and sRGB crop are 8 bit JPEGs. Check the colour numbers just under and to the right of the spot of tree sap (or whatever ... the dark spot, circled). There is a rather large difference, and the two images print differently; dramatically differently.

No more tonight. It is after midnight here now, and I have had a very long day (for me!). If I am not making as much sense as I think I am, please pardon this. I am extremely tired; exhausted even.

pris said:

I am sure you know that - and I am saying that to point out that measuring colors as I do regularly since I mostly do my color corrections and some other PP in LAB colorspace, I know there are no such casts and distortions as you say.

Click to expand...

Re-read what I said about never stepping outside of 8 bit, sRGB colour space.
Of course you will not see a difference if you do not do so.

pris said:

I know it's a long-standing belief of yours, but you are essentially saying that everyone who works in sRGB doesn't obtain right colors. That's stretching ti way too far - sRGB is the most commonly used colorspace, and it's not like we don't see just about zillion images all over the world, with unobjectionable colors.

Click to expand...

I think that one of us misunderstands what a colour space is and what it does to render colours when printing or viewing images.

IF you are using a relative colorimetric rendering (the default ... ), your sRGB colour representation will be relatively accurate, but circumscribed. This will specially be the case if you are working in 8 bit. The colour space you are using will represent all colours in the image, but within a smaller colour gamut. At worst this will show distinct posterisation and loss of nuances of colour tonality. It shows both of these effects with my red headlight image.

pris said:

Before you drop another load of numbers and theoretic musings on me, think about it this way: are you saying that if we take the same image, I start working on it in sRGB and you apply your workflow, mine will have unavoidable color casts and yours won't? This is quite easy to check...

Click to expand...

That has been demonstrated above with two versions of one image of mine.

These are not "theoretic musings" on my part, Pris. I have printed this image at least 20 times on one printer alone; I have also printed it on four other printers, including at A2 size on the R3880. It is my most used test image for printing, and I know it all too intimately.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

John,

this is turning into one of those "point by point" back and forth... There is plenty to say about your conclusions but with you being tired etc, makes not much sense to continue. After some points below I am out of this.

1. Your comparison of two versions you cited has little to do with topic at hand. Real question is, can you or can you not arrive to a good image without going to aRGB. Since most of the world never ventures there and manages to produce good images, claim that it's impossible falls flat.

2. There is RGB, CMYK, LAB... the difference between them comes to much more than just gamut. Many effects you observe and assign to the wider gamut of aRGB can and will be caused by many other factors.

3. Many times you said you do not PP your images. This contradicts the very idea of going to another colorspace for its wider gamut giving more freedom to do.. what, if you do not PP them?

I am not trying to make you change your belief. Far from it. I object against your claims that your workflow is the only right workflow, and those who work in sRGB are less competent.

Personally, I don't care about the numbers. I also know that it makes no difference when shooting Raw, however....

I shoot using aRGB, simply because I can see a difference, and just prefer what I see.

Simples.

--
Andy Hewitt

nick_webster said:

That's impossible as the jpg is just the RAW data compressed a bit - you can't get more information where none exists

It might be that your RAW converter just needs a bit more help, but you'll always be able to recover data better from a RAW than a jpg,

Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see it too.

The Raw data is the basis of any image you take from a camera, although there may be some permanent adjustments applied within the Raw data, which may mean off-camera JPGs might appear different to on-camera JPGs.

The only comparisons you can make at all, are differences between JPG processors.

--
Andy Hewitt

Andy Hewitt said:

I shoot using aRGB, simply because I can see a difference, and just prefer what I see.

Simples.

Click to expand...

You can't prefer it on monitor, can you? And when it comes to printing, the idea that your prints are better just because you shoot in aRGB is... well, at least weird.

John King said:

Yes, they can be. I have given you the numbers. If you download the images I posted in reply to Ricardo and open them in the appropriate colour space, you will see the different numbers. Both PPRGB and sRGB crop are 8 bit JPEGs. Check the colour numbers just under and to the right of the spot of tree sap (or whatever ... the dark spot, circled). There is a rather large difference, and the two images print differently; dramatically differently.

Click to expand...

That photo looks abysmal because the PPRGB photo in JPEG had to have its dynamic range significantly reduced.

JPEG files are 8 bits per channel. Monitors are also 8 bits per channel. If your monitor's maximum red is larger than a sRGB red, then to get the exact same colour saturation and intensity as on a sRGB monitor, the colour in the JPEG had to be severely desaturated and get an orange hue due to gamut differences.

If you know what you're doing, everything is (mostly) fine. If you don't, then there's a world of hurt out there because wide gamut is inherently bad and deeply flawed under the current display path. A wider gamut does not introduce any extra colours whatsoever - it just spreads them further apart, lowering dynamic range and introducing a lot more posterization and banding.

pris said:

Andy Hewitt said:

I shoot using aRGB, simply because I can see a difference, and just prefer what I see.

Simples.

Click to expand...

You can't prefer it on monitor, can you?

Click to expand...

Er, yeah. Actually, it's an entirely moot point. The profile used in-camera is pretty arbitrary as I shoot Raw, and can be easily changed in PP. I have switched between aRGB and sRGB in Aperture, and yes, I prefer using aRGB.

pris said:

And when it comes to printing, the idea that your prints are better just because you shoot in aRGB is... well, at least weird.

Click to expand...

I never said anything was better! I just said I preferred what I see when using aRGB. Actually, most of my images end up on a website, and probably end up being sRGB. To be honest, I only set aRGB in-camera, because I can't be bothered in PP.

Using the workflow I do, it really doesn't matter how I shoot, as I can adjust the profile according to what I need the final image for. I can even create different versions if needed.

My point was really that if you shoot Raw, and use a non-destructive workflow, then the argument is pretty pointless as far as what to set the camera at.

--
Andy Hewitt

I also edit with an argb capable monitor and it didn't cost a fortune, I must say I gotta agree with you on virtually all points.

The reason why lightroom is set to prophoto by default is to allow as much lattitude as possible during the editing process, this isn't some kind of mistake or hogwash.

People are confusing or associating a default brand color signature with what's actually considered accurate and or wide gamut color reproduction which goes beyond what the default color profile is assigned, there is a whole lot more to color than what the default profile gives you and it's up to the user to explore that.

Color space is one of the first things you choose to work with before you even take a photo and if you're starting out with a wide color gamut than downconverting from that is painless. Final output sharpening and the color space option is then the last thing done in accordance to how the image is going to be used.

Incase people are wondering, most pro labs will honor an argb tag btw

Just because you may not use every color in the crayon box doesn't mean those colors are useless or others won't. . .that's one way to look at it for those that are having a hard time understanding why people work in wide color gamut spaces.

John King said:

Raist3d said:

it's not a simple 12 bit to 8 bits. This is a very common misconception about JPEG.

Click to expand...

Of course. But it is a still a lossy conversion.

John King said:

Data is encoded in weight, in areas. That's why JPEGS look as good as they do. In fact, everything we share and when people go "ooh, ahh look at this raw output" is 99% of the time on the web a JPEG.

Click to expand...

If you look at a ProPhotoRGB image on the web, it looks abysmal. e.g.



Here is the sRGB version:



However, it is hard to get around the differences between colour spaces, as shown here (from Blatner & Fraser Real World PS CS):

John King said:

As for sRGB- aRGB can have some advantages when printing that vary wildly by subject and by the quality of print. But personally I don't find it worth the workflow hassle. To really see it on a monitor you need to get an adobe-gamut aRGB monitor which are expensive and if you are going to share on the web now you are adjusting colors to something that most of your audience will see it differently and you don't even know it (unless you compare in sRGB / aRGB browser profile aware etc in a normal monitor).

Click to expand...

BTW, I do use a monitor with an aRGB gamut (24 inch, it wasn't terribly expensive - under Oz $1,000); and print on an Epson R3880. I do notice a big difference between colour spaces.

Most people who look at my images do so on my monitor, or my A4~A2 prints ...

I also convert almost everything I upload to my web site to sRGB, but I do not use it otherwise.

John King said:

It hasn't been for me the workflow hassle but if it works for you great.

Click to expand...

What hassle? There isn't any. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.
Also BTW, one does not "adjust colours"; one converts to a colour space ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Click to expand...

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

Gidday Pris

pris said:

John,

this is turning into one of those "point by point" back and forth... There is plenty to say about your conclusions but with you being tired etc, makes not much sense to continue. After some points below I am out of this.

1. Your comparison of two versions you cited has little to do with topic at hand.

Click to expand...

It has almost everything to do with the topic at hand, I would have thought ...

pris said:

Real question is, can you or can you not arrive to a good image without going to aRGB.

Click to expand...

You may well be able to achieve images that satisfy you, so may anyone else. They do not satisfy me because they do not reflect colours as accurately as possible. What I do with my PP satisfies that acid test for me. I find images from sRGB are disappointing on my monitor, and in print. YMMV. That's your choice.

I convert my images to sRGB for the web, because that is the only colour space the web supports. As I demonstrated above, PPRGB looks lousy on the web.
Did you actually download the images and look at them?

pris said:

Since most of the world never ventures there and manages to produce good images, claim that it's impossible falls flat.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are not reading what I have written. You appear to be overlaying it with all sorts of other things that have little, if anything, to do with what I have actually written.

pris said:

2. There is RGB, CMYK, LAB... the difference between them comes to much more than just gamut. Many effects you observe and assign to the wider gamut of aRGB can and will be caused by many other factors.

Click to expand...

The effects I have observed are caused by exactly what I said. sRGB cannot represent the colour numbers within its gamut, and therefore misrepresents the colours as other colour numbers. What part of R = 156, G = 64, B = 41 (PPRGB) vs R = 226, G = 0, B = 37 (sRGB) can you not understand?

pris said:

3. Many times you said you do not PP your images. This contradicts the very idea of going to another colorspace for its wider gamut giving more freedom to do.. what, if you do not PP them?

Click to expand...

The larger colour space gives me more faithful colour reproduction and therefore more pleasing images on my screen and in print. It is but one of many benefits of using a larger colour space. I rarely if ever alter colour via curves or levels. However, that is only one benefit of having a larger colour space. One that is large enough to reproduce faithfully whatever colour numbers the camera has recorded ...

I also work in a colour-managed environment for the same reason/s ...

pris said:

I am not trying to make you change your belief. Far from it.

Click to expand...

A belief is something that rests on a foundation that lacks evidence to support it.

pris said:

I object against your claims that your workflow is the only right workflow, and those who work in sRGB are less competent.

Click to expand...

I have never made that claim. Making the claim I have made (and apparently supported by a number of others who can also see the differences) is not the same as what you have stated. You appear to be interpreting what I said to mean that, but that is not what I said, or meant.

If what you are doing is satisfactory for you, I am not about to tell you to do something else. That also does not make that 'something else' wrong, which is what you appear to be saying.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Gidday MatijaK

MatijaK said:

John King said:

Yes, they can be. I have given you the numbers. If you download the images I posted in reply to Ricardo and open them in the appropriate colour space, you will see the different numbers. Both PPRGB and sRGB crop are 8 bit JPEGs. Check the colour numbers just under and to the right of the spot of tree sap (or whatever ... the dark spot, circled). There is a rather large difference, and the two images print differently; dramatically differently.

Click to expand...

That photo looks abysmal because the PPRGB photo in JPEG had to have its dynamic range significantly reduced.

Click to expand...

Yeah. And it's "colour-managed" in the wrong colour space, LOL!

MatijaK said:

JPEG files are 8 bits per channel. Monitors are also 8 bits per channel. If your monitor's maximum red is larger than a sRGB red, then to get the exact same colour saturation and intensity as on a sRGB monitor, the colour in the JPEG had to be severely desaturated and get an orange hue due to gamut differences.

Click to expand...

You are right about the orange hue. That is exactly how the Ford paint comes out in sRGB. Ford never made a paint that colour ...

BTW, my new monitor is 12 bit internally and (IIRC) a 10 bit panel. It's the first professional grade panel ASUS have made. Came with a free Spyder calibrator too ... .

It is better than my CRT (just) and has a lot more screen real estate, which is nice. Unfortunately, I can see the individual pixels on panel monitors. Being square, they stand out more than the rectangular, offset "pixels" caused by the shadow mask on CRT monitors (which I can also see easily ... ), and the more regular, symmetrical pattern is more obvious to me. Maybe I shouldn't have got new glasses ...

MatijaK said:

If you know what you're doing, everything is (mostly) fine.

Click to expand...

That statement goes for lots of things in photography and elsewhere. And I agree.

MatijaK said:

If you don't, then there's a world of hurt out there because wide gamut is inherently bad and deeply flawed under the current display path.

Click to expand...

The current display path is aRGB. A year ago the cheapest aRGB panel money could buy in Oz cost around $2,600 and up. Mine cost me $699 ...

MatijaK said:

A wider gamut does not introduce any extra colours whatsoever -

Click to expand...

That statement is not correct. This is the "Ken Rockwell" mistake . PPRGB, and to a slightly lesser extent aRGB, can display almost all of the visible spectrum that most humans can see. sRGB cannot. That is clearly shown by my graph from Blatner & Fraser's mammoth tome, most of which is to do with colour management in some way, shape or form. I have read it twice, and still cannot claim to understand everything in it ...

MatijaK said:

it just spreads them further apart, lowering dynamic range and introducing a lot more posterization and banding.

Click to expand...

No. A wider gamut is capable of rendering more colours than a narrower gamut. This is fundamental to the science of colour spaces.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Gidday Esco

esco said:

I also edit with an argb capable monitor and it didn't cost a fortune, I must say I gotta agree with you on virtually all points.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Nice to know I am not imagining it all ... lol ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Gidday Andy

Andy Hewitt said:

Personally, I don't care about the numbers. I also know that it makes no difference when shooting Raw, however....

I shoot using aRGB, simply because I can see a difference, and just prefer what I see.

Simples.

Click to expand...

Yeah. It is that simple for me as well.

Taking a piccy of a flower, printing it then holding the print up to the original flower is an edifying experience!

My aim is that I should be able to cut that red headlight shot across the middle and lay it on the bonnet of the car and not be 'offended' by any stark differences. I can do that with PPRGB. I can't do it with sRGB.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

John King said:

That has been demonstrated above with two versions of one image of mine.

These are not "theoretic musings" on my part, Pris. I have printed this image at least 20 times on one printer alone; I have also printed it on four other printers, including at A2 size on the R3880. It is my most used test image for printing, and I know it all too intimately.

Click to expand...

Printing it on four different printers when you were selecting a printer? - I see no point, because it shows predominantly one color only, unless it was only one color that you were interested in. Printing 20 times the same page that shows only one color and on the same printer makes even less sense, but then who is anyone to tell you. The bottom line is that it proves absolutely nothing, regardless how good (by your estimates) this image might have looked - it is one color only.

--
- sergey

John King said:

No. A wider gamut is capable of rendering more colours than a narrower gamut. This is fundamental to the science of colour spaces.

Click to expand...

Both a wide gamut and a standard gamut monitor can render the exact same amount of colours - 2^24, or 16.777.216.

Monitor gamut is not a measure of the amount of colours, only of their positioning and intensity.

The output from your computer is 8 bits per channel. It doesn't matter if your monitor has 4398-bit processing or a 2387-bit panel (those numbers don't mean what you think they mean; they're used for dithering and 3D LUT transforms, to mitigate all that posterization and banding that would otherwise be inevitable).

At the end of the day, there are 2^24 colours on a CRT, 2^24 on an sRGB monitor and 2^24 on a wide gamut monitor, simply because that is the only thing the computer knows how to send to the monitor - hence my statement that wide gamut is inherently flawed under the current display path, which is 8-bit-per-channel. Once that changes, everything will be vastly different. If it changes at all, because there's more and more shifting back to sRGB from monitor manufacturers.

After reading your responses and the replies of others from this point down, methinks that you've drunk and swallowed the ARGB Kool Aid.
There appears to be some "it's there but you can't see it" defense but, well....

John King said:

John King said:

Bill Turner

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sergey_Green said:

John King said:

That has been demonstrated above with two versions of one image of mine.

These are not "theoretic musings" on my part, Pris. I have printed this image at least 20 times on one printer alone; I have also printed it on four other printers, including at A2 size on the R3880. It is my most used test image for printing, and I know it all too intimately.

Click to expand...

Printing it on four different printers when you were selecting a printer? - I see no point, because it shows predominantly one color only, unless it was only one color that you were interested in. Printing 20 times the same page that shows only one color and on the same printer makes even less sense, but then who is anyone to tell you. The bottom line is that it proves absolutely nothing, regardless how good (by your estimates) this image might have looked - it is one color only.

Click to expand...

For an engineer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the basics of how "a colour" is represented digitally in an RGB or a CMYK colour space, of any description.

I will give you a clue - Take some quantity of each of the primary colours (or their complementary colours, for CMY) and add black to taste if reproducing the image on a CMYK device ...

You also appear to have difficulty with the concept of using a standard image (or series of images ... ) for testing. Basic scientific method, Green. Why does it not surprise me that you do not appear to understand that; or maybe it just doesn't suit your purpose/s to understand that ...

But then, who is anyone to tell you ...

--

-

John King said:

Sergey_Green said:

John King said:

That has been demonstrated above with two versions of one image of mine.

These are not "theoretic musings" on my part, Pris. I have printed this image at least 20 times on one printer alone; I have also printed it on four other printers, including at A2 size on the R3880. It is my most used test image for printing, and I know it all too intimately.

Click to expand...

Printing it on four different printers when you were selecting a printer? - I see no point, because it shows predominantly one color only, unless it was only one color that you were interested in. Printing 20 times the same page that shows only one color and on the same printer makes even less sense, but then who is anyone to tell you. The bottom line is that it proves absolutely nothing, regardless how good (by your estimates) this image might have looked - it is one color only.

Click to expand...

For an engineer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the basics of how "a colour" is represented digitally in an RGB or a CMYK colour space, of any description.

I will give you a clue - Take some quantity of each of the primary colours (or their complementary colours, for CMY) and add black to taste if reproducing the image on a CMYK device ...

You also appear to have difficulty with the concept of using a standard image (or series of images ... ) for testing. Basic scientific method, Green. Why does it not surprise me that you do not appear to understand that; or maybe it just doesn't suit your purpose/s to understand that ...

But then, who is anyone to tell you ...

Click to expand...

I am not sure you understand what it is I responded about. There is no blue, nor green in your image, only red. Aside from black and white of course. I think you referred to this,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38471856

So printing it many times over (even if you did) and then trying to make some point out of it is in essence, well, pointless.

--
- sergey

Sergey_Green said:

John King said:

Sergey_Green said:

John King said:

That has been demonstrated above with two versions of one image of mine.

These are not "theoretic musings" on my part, Pris. I have printed this image at least 20 times on one printer alone; I have also printed it on four other printers, including at A2 size on the R3880. It is my most used test image for printing, and I know it all too intimately.

Click to expand...

Printing it on four different printers when you were selecting a printer? - I see no point, because it shows predominantly one color only, unless it was only one color that you were interested in. Printing 20 times the same page that shows only one color and on the same printer makes even less sense, but then who is anyone to tell you. The bottom line is that it proves absolutely nothing, regardless how good (by your estimates) this image might have looked - it is one color only.

Click to expand...

For an engineer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the basics of how "a colour" is represented digitally in an RGB or a CMYK colour space, of any description.

I will give you a clue - Take some quantity of each of the primary colours (or their complementary colours, for CMY) and add black to taste if reproducing the image on a CMYK device ...

You also appear to have difficulty with the concept of using a standard image (or series of images ... ) for testing. Basic scientific method, Green. Why does it not surprise me that you do not appear to understand that; or maybe it just doesn't suit your purpose/s to understand that ...

But then, who is anyone to tell you ...

Click to expand...

I am not sure you understand what it is I responded about. There is no blue, nor green in your image, only red. Aside from black and white of course. I think you referred to this,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=38471856

Click to expand...

You should read the post you refer to, at least once ...
The first time will be IF you actually read it after this post ...

Sergey_Green said:

So printing it many times over (even if you did) and then trying to make some point out of it is in essence, well, pointless.

Click to expand...

Are you a complete fool?
Or just pretending to be one?
Just asking ...

See my previous explanation to you above.
I can use simpler words and type more slowly, if that would help ...

--

-