Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Andrew
Haley says...

wide rgb

... what is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Gamut_RGB_color_space

Ok. Are there any wide gamut monitors around? The primaries are
within the "spectral locus".

No. Adobe RGB is difficult, and anything more would be even more
difficult. The Wide Gamut primaries are pure monochromatic light, and
two of them are wavelengths to which the eye is almost insensitive.

Andrew.

Alfred Molon writes:

In article , PeterN
says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?

Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?

I do my processing in ProPhoto, in 16-bit-per-channel. You get
considerably better highlight recovery, and can make rather large
changes without posterization.

Most printers exceed sRGB in some directions. But in any case, your
*working* space is a whole different question. The point there is to
capture as much information as the camera will give you, so that you can
then work with it and control how it is finally presented.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Alfred Molon writes:

In article 2013021615450475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.

That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?

*Saving* is not necessarily the question. In Bibble Pro (now Corel
Aftershot Pro), and I believe in Lightroom, they don't save the pixels,
they save the settings and adjustments. So what I have on disk is the
..NEF file (or whatever for other cameras) and an XML file with editing
info, and whatever sizes of jpegs I have chosen to render (mostly web
size).

If I go through Photoshop, for a fully custom presentation or because I
screwed up the exposure so badly I need to do a "restoration" on my own
photo, then the .PSD file is sometimes kind of big, but there are so few
of them I don't worry about it.

Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?

None that I've ever heard of. But people working form JPEGs are not the
market for ProPhoto color space.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Alfred Molon writes:

In article , PeterN
says...
If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.

Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
processing.

Of what use is an AdobeRGB jpeg? Can't use it on the web or send it to
people's cell phones (and expect it to look decent)!

From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
AdobeRGB, how would you know?

Preview. Or just "they look funny", and need to be worked with to get
them to look right.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Eric Stevens writes:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:01:50 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.

softproofing.

We are discussing the situation where the printer's gamut exceeds that
of the monitor, remember. In that situation soft proofing can never be
a complete answer.

it doesn't need to be complete. softproofing easily lets you preview
what you will get on the printer, even if it isn't perfect.

You must have either a better monitor or a less capable printer than I
do.

My Epson 3800 so far exceeds the gamut of my not incapable Dell U2410
that soft proofing is only a rough guide to what I can expect in a
print. Mind you, I use a ProPhoto colour space.

You might be interested in the gamut plots at
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/gamuts.html.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

PeterN writes:

On 2/16/2013 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

sniP


I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.


When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the
printer. When you assign the profile, you see the actual color the
profile will print.

ALWAYS convert! The only valid use for "Assign" is when you have a file
not properly tagged with the color space it's in.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 18/02/2013 07:56, PeterN wrote:
On 2/17/2013 6:57 AM, Rob wrote:
On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , PeterN
says...
If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.

Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
processing.

From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger
than
AdobeRGB, how would you know?

Printer



If its the printer, that you use to evaluate the image, isn't a waste of
money buying a monitor to read that quality?

Yes. If you only print without making fine color adjustments.
AdobeRGB is a much wider gamut than sRGB. sRGB was intended for web
viewing, not digital art printing.



I find that there are so many variables to make adjustments, my printing
is how I've seen the vista.

How would you define a fine art print, what should one be looking for or
at to make all the corrections?

On 18/02/2013 07:57, PeterN wrote:
On 2/17/2013 9:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
says...

From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger
than
AdobeRGB, how would you know?

Printer

But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.


Soft proofing does a pretty good job.



Some time a go I tried soft proofing and became some what disillusioned
when I used it.

On 18/02/2013 07:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:07:05 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
| exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
| AdobeRGB, how would you know?
|
| Printer
| --

Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
output profiles for color management in the printer to
ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.

Have you considered turning off the printer's colour management and
using your print application (Photo Shop, or whatever) to do the task
instead?



I can't use PS or what ever to manage colour, I let the printer manage
the colour. (with great sucess BTW)

On 17/02/2013 13:06, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2013021615450475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.

That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?

That is only if you are making additional adjustments with an external
editor such as CS5. All other LR edits to DNGs are recorded as
non-destructive data within LR.
Fortunately for me I am still shooting with my D300S. So If I take one
of my latest SI submissions I start with a 4288x2848 DNG @ 36.8MB with
all my RAW and LR adjustments. After exporting to CS5 for a few other
adjustments including a crop, I have a 4500x3000 TIF @ 81.1MB. I could
have saved back to LR4 as a PSD and saved a bit of HDD space. Both
retain their ProPhoto RGB colorspace, and I can print those without
issue to my R2880 using the matched ICC profile for the printer + paper.

Also, HDD space is not unreasonable today. I am certainly not going to
share or distribute fat TIFs unless I really have to.

Then I export the saved TIF converting it to an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG (and
still at 360 ppi and able to produce a pretty decent print)ending up at
10.6MB. I resize that JPEG for the SI getting it down to 384KB, 1280x862
and still at 360 ppi switching to 72 ppi makes no difference to the file
size or the viewer's experience.

Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?

None that I know of, and I doubt there ever will be. The "in camera"
colorspace selection is mainly for the benefit of the camera generated
JPEGs.
Consider that the RAW file is going to be colorspace neutral until you
process it in the RAW processing software of your choice and use
whatever options it provides you. Adobe allows you the choice to decide
between sRGB, Adobe RGB(1998), or ProPhoto RGB in ACR, or import and
convert to DNG 16-bit ProPhoto with Lightroom.

I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.



I certainly had problems when printing with my R1800 printer when using
Ilford paper, could never get the balance correct, even soft proofing
etc. This paper needed the Ilford profiles as the print looked muddy,
which could not be manually corrected.

I now mostly rely on Epson paper and inks and use there supplied profiles.