On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have a camera (Nikon D750) with a color space that encompasses
AdobeRGB. I use software (Photoshop etc) with an enormous Profile
Connection Space (PCS) which can variously swallow or spit out
virtually any real world color space. I have a printer (Epson Sure
Color P800) which can accept images in the conventional sRB and the
wider AdobeRGB. I now have a screen with a gamut which is AdobeRGB for
all practical purposes.

So - whacko! - I can now photograph, see, edit and print images in
more glorious color than ever before. Except that I don't seem to be
able to, at least without experiencing color distortions which result
in garish colors. At this stage I pointed the finger squarely at
Windows which I have many times read is limited to an sRGB color
space.

But surely this can't be so. This is the 21st century and the days of
the kerosine-fired magic lantern are nearly gone. Surely Microsoft
have seen the future that is coming?

I have been exploring Windows color management and I have found the
the that since Windows 2000, Windows has used the Image Color
Management (ICM) which as far as I can tell *is* limited to the sRGB
color space by default. See http://tinyurl.com/j938m4m or
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx

However, with Windows Vista, MS introduced the Windows Color System
(WCS). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System
"Windows Color System features a Color Infrastructure and Translation
Engine (CITE) at its core" which sounds remarkably like like a working
color space and color translation engine supplied by Microsoft.

I haven't yet made sense of what little information I have been able
to find about this but it sounds as though whether or not CMS is used
depends on the supplier of image processing softwa do nothing and
your color processing will fall back on the default sRGB. However if
the software provider supplies the necessary software and profiles you
can use any color space you like.

If my understanding is correct it is likely that whether or not I have
access to a wider color space than sRGB depens on Adobe providing and
utilising the necessary software.

The question is, am I right or have I got myself into a knot
somewhere?


I've continued to pursue this matter and while I haven't got to the
bottom of the way that Windows handles color I may have got closer to
the root of my problem.

It seems that lower priced wide gamut monitors us GB-LED technology
and this, unless properly calibrated gives rise to garish greens and
reds. Calibrating properly seems to entail the use of an i1 which
means that my Spyder5 won't do. See the AnandaTech review of the Dell
U3014 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6890/d...014-lcd-review for an
explanation of how it all works.

"Of course you also have the assumption that more colors = better,
right? Well, unfortunately that isn’t the case. If you only have a
larger gamut and not software that understands how to use that
gamut, what you get are colors that are further outside of the
gamut than they should be. Greens are too green, reds are too red,
and everything looks like a badly calibrated OLED smartphone.
Anyone buying something like the U3014 is going to need to have
accurate colors in any colorspace, and the Dell offers an sRGB mode
as well."

No doubt there will be more to follow.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens