Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
space. Supposedly these are the best.

On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
space. Supposedly these are the best.

On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?


there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI

To sum it up!
Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
size doesn't fit all.

--
PeterN

On 2/16/2013 11:19 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
space. Supposedly these are the best.

On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?


there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI

To sum it up!
Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
size doesn't fit all.


I forgot to add:
Here is a video htat explains the differences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

--
PeterN

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:23:49 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
space. Supposedly these are the best.

On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?

Eric Chan has investigated the matching of color gamuts between the
(seriously obsolete) Samsung 191T monitor and the (obsolete) Epson
3800 printer. He presents this at
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan...00/gamuts.html

His conclusion that no printer gamut entirely envelops a monitor
gamut, and vice versa, is almost certainly as true today with the
improved modern monitors and papers and inks. The whole article is
worth studying.

His conclusions a

-----------------------------
From the examples above, as well as additional tests that I've
performed on many other inkjet papers, I would conclude:

If you use sRGB or Adobe RGB as your working space (e.g., in
Photoshop), then you won't be able to access all the colors the
3800 is capable of printing. These missing colors are usually the
light yellows and the mid-to-dark greens and red/magentas. Use a
wider space such as ProPhoto RGB to unlock these colors and make
full use of your printer and paper's gamut!

There are many colors that glossy, luster, and semi-gloss papers
can reproduce that matte papers cannot. However, perhaps
surprisingly, there are also some colors that matte papers can
reproduce that glossy, luster, and semi-gloss papers cannot.

There are many colors that the 3800 is capable of printing that
cannot be displayed on normal monitors. Even the high-end monitors
that cover approximately the Adobe RGB gamut cannot show all of
the 3800-printable colors. This makes image editing on a display
seem strange, given the inability to preview certain colors. It
means, for instance, that it's possible for a color to appear more
saturated in the print than it does on the display!
--------------------------------------

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:33:15 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/16/2013 11:19 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
space. Supposedly these are the best.

On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?


there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI

To sum it up!
Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
size doesn't fit all.


I forgot to add:
Here is a video htat explains the differences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

Wow! That's worth a million words.

Thank you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2013-02-16 14:49:56 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

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

Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?

Almost everybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, only making
the conversion to sRGB & 8-bit JPEG on export.

Also anybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, and then
performing additional editing in an external editor such as Photoshop
or some other stand alone applications such as some of the NIK
offerings.

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.

A note in the LR4 preferences reads:
"16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving
color detais from Lightroom".
and
"The AdobeRGB (1998) colorspace cannot encompass the full range of
colors available within Lightroom."
and
"The sRGB colorspace cannot encompass the full range of colors
available within Lightroom."

There is also this note in the LR Preferences regarding using 8-bit in
LR or in an external editor:
"8-bit files are smaller and more compatible with various programs and
plug-ins, but will not preserve fine tonal detail as well as 16-bit
data. This is particularly true in wide gamut color spaces such as
ProPhoto RGB."


Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?

Perhaps, perhaps not. If your product is only going to be viewed online
there is probably no good reason to work in ProPhoto RGB, unless you
are trying to work the best colorspace for your software, and then
convert to 8-bit sRGB to save as JPEGs for online presentation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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?

Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2/16/2013 5:49 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
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?


As I said earlier , it depends on your use. I prefer to work in ProPhoto
because I feel that I have more color control. I also use ICC profiles.

--
PeterN

On 17/02/2013 12:45 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-16 14:49:56 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

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

Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?

Almost everybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, only making
the conversion to sRGB & 8-bit JPEG on export.

Also anybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, and then
performing additional editing in an external editor such as Photoshop or
some other stand alone applications such as some of the NIK offerings.

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.

A note in the LR4 preferences reads:
"16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving color
detais from Lightroom".
and
"The AdobeRGB (1998) colorspace cannot encompass the full range of
colors available within Lightroom."

And if you can't see it (because your monitor "only" covers aRGB), then....?
and
"The sRGB colorspace cannot encompass the full range of colors available
within Lightroom."

There is also this note in the LR Preferences regarding using 8-bit in
LR or in an external editor:
"8-bit files are smaller and more compatible with various programs and
plug-ins, but will not preserve fine tonal detail as well as 16-bit
data. This is particularly true in wide gamut color spaces such as
ProPhoto RGB."


Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?

Perhaps, perhaps not. If your product is only going to be viewed online
there is probably no good reason to work in ProPhoto RGB, unless you are
trying to work the best colorspace for your software, and then convert
to 8-bit sRGB to save as JPEGs for online presentation.

Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.


There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and sRGB colourspace.
A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).

I can't see much point - if any - in using sRGB for printing unless
you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
case, and opens a can of worms.

While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
manufacturers.