If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Assign or convert profile was ( Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors)
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
wide gamut monitor? | peter | Digital Photography | 15 | February 22nd 07 08:22 PM |
color gamut conversion | Peter Vermeer | Digital Photography | 5 | April 20th 05 11:38 AM |
Nikon D70, how to turn off the gamut RGB display. | Yong Wai via PhotoKB.com | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 1st 05 04:55 PM |
the color gamut of dcam sensors | rarewolf | Digital Photography | 2 | December 26th 04 04:44 PM |
TV type with widest gamut, for displaying images | Mike | Digital Photography | 5 | November 28th 04 04:22 PM |