1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Software Lightroom RAW editing issues

Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by smc8788, 27 Sep 2011.

  1. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    I've been editing some 14-bit RAW files in Lightroom recently, and have been having some issues where there is a large discrepancy between what I'm seeing on my screen when editing the files and the resulting jpegs after I export them. The jpegs seem to have much more saturated colours and have less detail in darker areas, which seem much darker in the jpegs than they do in the RAW files I'm editing.

    Is this normal when editing RAW files or have I probably done something wrong in the RAW -> jpeg conversion process? I don't ever recall having this problem when editing jpeg files from the camera with Lighroom, but I've also go a new monitor since I last used the program it so I'm not sure where the problem might lie.

    Any thoughts/help would be appreciated.
     
    stonedsurd likes this.
  2. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    What colourspace are you using to export with? Also, you have a wide gamut screen, so unless you are using a colour managed workflow, you WILL get oversaturated, unrealistic colours.

    How are you viewing the exported JPEGs? In Photoshop, or just the default windows viewer?
     
  3. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    I'm exporting in sRGB, and I've tried viewing them in the Windows photo viewer, Picasa, and Google Chrome after uploading them to the web, and they all give the same oversaturated colours. Interestingly though, I just imported the edited jpeg back into Lightroom and it looks exactly the same as the RAW file I edited, so it's obviously not the file itself but a difference in how Lightroom and other applications are displaying it....I'm not sure what would be causing that though.

    As for the monitor, I'm just using it in its standard profile, but I'm guessing that setting it to sRGB mode would give more accurate results in my case?
     
    Last edited: 28 Sep 2011
  4. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    The issue is almost certainly non colour managed applications outputting images in standard gamut, and your wide gamut monitor just exaggerating colours. You have a £500 monitor, so consider getting a means of calibrating it. This will allow you to set the calibration profile (ICM profile) as the default windows colourspace. Like this...

    [​IMG]


    Failing that, try setting the default profile for your monitor as sRGB.icm like this...

    [​IMG]

    See if that makes a difference.
     
  5. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    Thanks for the help Pook, I appreciate it. I changed the default Windows profile to the sRGB one and that seems to have solved the issue - the RAW files in Photoshop now look the same as the exported jpegs (so I'll probably have to go back and re-edit them again as they will most likely be viewed in applications other than Photoshop which are not colour managed, so I don't want them looking oversaturated). That leads me to another point though - am I right in thinking that because the issue was caused by the wide gamut monitor exaggerating the standard gamut images, that they would look 'normal' when viewed on a standard gamut monitor, even in non colour managed applications?
     
  6. Darkened

    Darkened New Member

    Joined:
    28 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    965
    Likes Received:
    17
    The very first thing you should do is to calibrate you display!

    Since if you think about it, you adjust all your images on this display, but you don't have any idea how they will look even on another monitor connected to the same computer let alone on someone elses monitor. At this stage you have built a house without the base floor.

    What I mean is that you can adjust and adjust and tweak and tweak your colors and other settings, but they are pretty much meaningless unless the only place you display them is on your computer.

    Hopefully this didn't sound harsh, but I'm pretty much pro color management myself.
     
  7. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    No, that does make sense and I'm starting to realise that now. I've avoided buying a colourimeter before because I always thought they were too expensive and wasn't sure whether it was worth calibrating my display over using the factory calibrated modes. So, can anyone recommend me a decent colourimeter for under £100? :)
     
  8. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    Yes they would, unless you've edited them to compensate for them looking oversaturated, in which case they will look very desaturated. The oversaturation was not caused by the image, but by the monitor.

    Also.. while we're about it, ensure Photoshop is set up correctly... (edit/colour settings).. like this...

    [​IMG]

    That will ensure that at least Photoshop is taking advantage of your wide gamut screen and still colour managing. Make sure those boxes are ticked too, so when you load a photo with any other profile than AdobeRGB1998, you can tell it to "Use the Default Colourspace) and you will always be editing in AdobeRGB. You can then choose to change the image's profile to sRGB for web use, or leave it as AdobeRGB for print (or colour managed display on your wide gamut screen)... in other words.. you have control.


    For that kind of money.... Spyder 3 Pro. Actually does a pretty good job of calibrating wide gamut screens.

    Once calibrated, remove the sRGB.icm profile from windows default colorspace, and replace it with the .icm profile created by the spyder. At the moment, with the sRGB profile set, you are not taking advantage of the wide gamut, even in colour managed apps like Photoshop. This however... is still preferable to false colours. The only real way to get this right with a wide gamut screen is to profile it... create a icm profile, and use that as the default windows colorspace. The Spyder may well automatically set this when it profiles... but make sure by checking.

    Those Photoshop settings though.... they should ALWAYS be like above.. do NOT use your monitor profile as a default working space in Photoshop... only as the Windows default. Once set like above, Photoshop and Windows will remap the adobeRGB colorspace to your monitor, but you are still editing in AdobeRGG.
     
    Last edited: 29 Sep 2011
    stonedsurd likes this.
  9. Darkened

    Darkened New Member

    Joined:
    28 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    965
    Likes Received:
    17
    Since I started posting here, I might as well continue.

    For the calibrator I'd probably go with Xrite products, I'm using the Spyder 3 Pro myself (not a wide gamut screen) and it does an ok job, but the results are not always consistent. At least take a look at the fairly new ColorMunki Display, since it's the "lower end" calibrator from Xrite and it's probably going to be the closest thing to Spyder when price is considered. This is something I'd invest a bit in since it's pretty much the foundation of doing photo editing on the computer.

    I don't think you'll have to remove the sRGB profile since both calibrators (or their software to be exact) know to replace and load the correct profile when Windows starts.

    For the Photoshop color settings, I'd stay away from AdobeRGB myself and go straight to the ProPhoto RGB since your monitor may or may not show all the colors in AdobeRGB-space, but it may also show over it, like 105% of the AdobeRGB. More importantly a bunch of newer photo printers have a gamut which is over the AdobeRGB, not by much, but why bother with something mediocre when you can aim for the best quality instead.

    Lightroom also uses (a slightly modified) ProPhoto RGB, so it only makes sense to tweak your LR settings so that it exports to ProPhotoRGB when say you want to "Edit in Photoshop".

    So in Photoshop:

    Working spaces:
    RGB=ProPhoto
    CMYK=doesn't matter
    Gray=Gray gamma 1.8 (which is correct for ProPhoto)
    Spot=leave as is

    I don't have any of the profile boxes ticked since Photoshop will honor the embedded profiles anyway and the less conversions between profiles you do, the better.

    And in LR @ External editing:
    File format=Tiff (doesn't matter, but Tiff for me)
    Color space=ProPhoto RGB
    Bit depth=16bit
    Resolution= 300
    Compression=None/Zip

    This is just my 0.02$, but these settings are pretty much recommended by the Luminous Landscape and other professional photographers as well.
     
    stonedsurd likes this.
  10. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,776
    Likes Received:
    303
    I've bookmarked this thread for when I get my monitor. I've been working in mismatched color spaces on a badly calibrated screen for too long.

    Pook and Darkened, you get rep.
     
  11. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    OK.. I have some serious issues with this advice...


    Do NOT get the ColorMunki. It's crap. This is advice (Like ALL my advice) based on actual experience, not stuff I've read on the intrenet. Whenever I've used this device, and then checked the quality of the profile with my LaCie Blue Eye Pro and my DTP94 colorimeters, it's massively inaccurate. It's also only around £20 less than the Spyder 3. I have also used the Spyder 3 Pro extensively and had no problems with it whatsoever. It has delivered consistent results time after time. The color Munki is better than nothing at all, but the little you'll save is not worth the MASSIVE drop in quality you'll suffer.

    Indeed, but they WILL leave the old profile in place and set the new one to default. Personally, I'd be happier making sure there is only ONE profile in that list just in case Windows decides one day to do something stupid. For the sake of the 5 seconds it takes to remove the old one, it's worth it for peace of mind.

    His monitor does NOT show 105% of AdobeRGB at all, it shows 96%. VERY few screens can show the whole of AdobeRGB1998, and certainly not ones costing £500.

    I can NOT recommend using ProPhoto for one simple reason: No screen on earth can show that entire gamut, so you're editing blind. What is the point of editing in a colourspace you can not proof? So many so called photographers are recommending this, and it's just plain stupid! They're just thinking "Wider gamut is better" without thinking it through. No camera made can capture the gamut of colours in that profile, and no screen can display it, so what is the advantage of using it? Just because it's a wider gamut? So what? You can't SEE that gamut on any display you can realistically buy, and the guy's camera will not even be capturing the whole gamut that profile can deliver. Seriously... there's some crap advice floating around on the net these days.
    There have been many campaigns to advocate that profile, and despite that, AdobeRGB1998 still persist as the preferred colourspace for the vast majority of professional work. The only reason lightroom uses a version of that profile is because they want a wide enough workspace so whatever you do in lightroom, it is unobtrusive and wide enough to refrain from altering your image for when you finally export it as a bitmapped image.. NOT because it's superior as a WORKING colourspace.

    Never work in a colourspace you can not proof. Think about it... why would you want to do anything else? The whole point of a calibrated monitor, and printing system is so you can faithfully proof on the screen what will come out of the printer

    If ProPhoto was as widely accepted as a professionally viable colourspace, how come any high end camera you care to mention does not have it as a default colourspace you can set? Surely if it was as widely used as a working colourspace as you allude to, it would make sense to shoot in that colourspace, and therefore camera manufacturers would be catering for it? The fact is none (except 3 systems I can think of.. all costing 5 figure sums and built for highly specialised uses) actually have it as an option.

    As for ProPhoto, see above.

    Grey gamma 1.8? Again, what is your rationale? Greyscale or RGB.. makes no difference, the gamma should 2.2 on a Windows or Mac workspace. If he calibrates his monitor it will be to a gamma of 2.2.. what is your rationale for 1.8 for grey scale?? It makes no sense.

    A gamma of 1.8 is NOT correct for ProPhoto. There IS no "correct" gamma for a colour profile... it's just a colourspace. The accepted standard gamma for all Windows and Mac workspaces is 2.2 regardless of colourspace. This is fact... D65-2.2. Fact! That's the accepted professional temp and gamma widely acknowledged to be standard. If you are editing and producing work on a system set to use a gamma of 1.8 then your work will look wrong on every single computer system currently being used out there right now. What you advocate is going back to the bad old days of Apple and PC having separate gamma standards. Apple used to be 1.8 years ago, and every time people sent me artwork produced on a Mac it always needed adjusting. I've no idea where your information is coming from but it's seriously wrong.



    Even if the picture is in a profile inappropriate, or just plain wrong? Carry on working in the wrong profile? Why would you want to do that?

    Converting profile has no detrimental effect on image quality unless you do it millions of times and just loose track of what working space you're in. It is a non destructive process, because you are not altering the bitmap in any way whatsoever.

    Also, what if the image is only tagged with a profile and not actually converted to it? That's very dangerous ground to walk on.

    DPI should be set to whatever the camera shoots it's RAW files in. You don't want to be unnecessarily changing any aspects of resolution, print, or pixel, until you actually need to. If your camera shoots at 240dpi, which is quite common, that's what it should be left to.

    I AM a professional photographer. Have been for 25 years. I'm massively experienced in producing print ready artwork, and hugely over qualified to comment on these issues. Who the hell are Luminous Landscapes anyway and how qualified are they to comment? I bet you everything I own that the legendary knob head Bruce Fraser is behind this load of bollocks. He's a loudmouthed, ignorant fool who has been universally reviled by true professionals for years. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and just insists that ProPhoto is better, because it's bigger.... but he's missing the point.

    I've been professionally working with colour workflow and digital imaging for longer than I care to remember. I've been using Photoshop since the initial version and I'm ACE qualified. I've worked with MASSIVE corporate clients, and shot all manner of industrial photography on all mediums for quarter of a century.... I stand by my advice. You all may take it or leave it. I'm not doing this to earn point, rep or respect.. quite frankly, I've earned my stripes and no longer give a ****. I'm saying all this because someone in here needs correct advice and he's not getting it. Simple.

    I wish no animosity.. but I hate it when people regurgitate bollox off the interwebs without understanding whether its accurate or not. That may make me look like an arrogant cock, but so long as the guy who's struggling to get his head around this may be convinced that what I'm saying is correct, that's all I care about.

    I still love you all.. :)

    Pook
    xxxxx LOL
     
    Last edited: 29 Sep 2011
    smc8788 likes this.
  12. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    I've also never got the fascination with ProPhoto - the ONLY time I use it (and I mean ONLY) is when making large a/b gamma adjustments in neg conversion in order to remove the blue emulsion cast left after inversion as I get better results scanning negatives as positives and using my own profiling than I do from using a built-in 'preset' to automatically invert the neg during the scanning process. The actual colour correction for neg takes place under AdobeRGB1998, though - I switch straight back to AdobeRGB as soon as I've got rid of the lion's share of the colour cast - as that is what the rest of my analogue workflow is based around. For transparency, I don't leave the AdobeRGB colour space as there is no need to.

    For a wholly digital workflow, I don't see any point in moving away from AdobeRGB - set it in-camera and then forget about it. You're just going to create gamut issues (if you ever print) if you switch into ProPhoto to colour manage or edit your work. It's pointless and, as Pook says, you can't soft proof effectively.
     
  13. veato

    veato I should be working

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    755
    Likes Received:
    69
    Can I ask then...

    My camera is set to AdobeRGB(1998) and my iMac has been calibrated the manual method (haven't got a Spyder yet but it's on the cards). I called the profile something like ImacMonitor.icm or something (at work so can't check).

    I always assumed then - probably incorrectly - that in PS I would set the working colourspace to the iMac calibration I did. Is this not correct then?
     
  14. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    ^ That post made me realise something....I checked my camera and it was set to sRGB colour space, not AdobeRGB. Would that make any difference to what you've said, given that I am taking an sRGB image, editing it in AdobeRGB, and then exporting it to sRGB again? Could that be the cause of my problems?

    Also...a lot of the settings you listed above aren't available in Lightroom (I don't own a copy of Photoshop), the only options I have to do with colour management this is this under Preferences -> External editing:

    [​IMG]

    Thanks for all the help so far and the advice on monitor calibration though, I've just ordered a Spyder 3 Pro from Amazon and will have a go at doing that when it arrives :thumb:
     
  15. Ligoman17

    Ligoman17 New Member

    Joined:
    10 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    441
    Likes Received:
    6
    Because you are shooting RAW and editing in Lightroom, it doesn't matter which color space you select in camera. Your RAW files don't get a color space embedded until you export them, and you are given an opportunity at export to select the color space. While you are editing a RAW file in Lightroom, it assumes the widest gamut possible, prophotoRGB.
     
  16. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    No, you would set the colourspace of Photoshop to AdobeRGB1998... or sRGB if you only produce work for web or screen use. You can use ProPhoto if you want, but like I said earlier... there's no advantage that is measurable, and one BIG disadvantage - it can't be soft proofed.

    The ICM monitor profile is set in the OS's default workspace.

    It doesn't matter if you were shooting in sRGB so long as you process the RAW file as a wider gamut. I would still set the camera to AdobeRGB though just in case you are forced to use unfamiliar software to process the RAWs one day.. just in case it processes them as what you flagged as a preference.

    One thing though... most cameras can also shoot in TIFF. I don't recommend this, but if you were to do that, then it IS in sRGB gamut.

    Here's my LR export settings.

    [​IMG]

    That's what I'd recommend. the DPI however, should be set to whatever your camera produces.

    No problem. Let me know if you need help.

    This is true, but for sake of peace of mind... just set it to AdobeRGB.. like I said above, you may be forced to quickly process some RAWs through one day on a system you're not familiar with, and it may just dev them through as the profile set as a preference.

    I would NOT select ProPhoto as the exported colourspace... for all the reasons above. Work only in the widest gamut you can accurately soft proof... which realistically is AdobeRGB1998 (or sRGB if you don't have a wide gamut screen). Lightroom may list ProPhoto as the recommended option, but there's no point working in a colourspace you can't proof, as you have no idea what effect the colours outside of your workflow's gamut will actually print like. Almost all cameras, monitor and printers are only really just capable of dealing with Adobe RGB anyway, so why complicate things.

    The day I can buy a monitor that can display the ProPhoto gamut I will be all over it like a cheap suit... but until then, accuracy is more important than the "my gamut is bigger than yours" argument ;)
     
    Last edited: 30 Sep 2011
  17. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    I have nothing to add to the technical discussion, apart from another recommendation for the Spyder. I've never had a bad experience with mine.

    I'll also add my thanks to Pook for sharing his wealth of knowledge. I picked up a thing or two here.
     
  18. Ligoman17

    Ligoman17 New Member

    Joined:
    10 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    441
    Likes Received:
    6
    I completely agree, and in practice my camera is always set to AdobeRGB *just in case.* In smc8788's specific example though, (RAW capture imported into Lightroom) the in-camera color space (sRGB vs AdobeRGB) doesn't matter.

    This is one of those topics where a drawing works much better than words. It'd be great if someone could come up with a simple diagram of a typical digital workflow (capture -> import -> export -> print) showing where/how color spaces come into play (especially how 1. working color spaces in software, 2. monitor profiles and 3. printer profiles contribute to continuity throughout the process)

    On another note - I think your criticisms against ProPhotoRGB are equally true for AdobeRGB in many cases. Most photographers (from casual to serious amateur) probably don't need more than sRGB has to offer. The gamut is plenty good enough, especially for consumer-grade monitors, and you can forego color management headaches. Your photos are guaranteed to display on the web and other peoples' computers correctly, and your grandma can take your jpegs to any old drug store photo processor and expect good results. I started learning this photography business from scratch 2 years ago. I'm self taught and gleaned most of my knowledge from the internet. I wish I hadn't been exposed to color spaces until I'd really mastered every aspect of the workflow (something I'm still working at!). There's really not much benefit for an inexperienced or amateur photographer to get into color spaces.
     
  19. Darkened

    Darkened New Member

    Joined:
    28 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    965
    Likes Received:
    17
    I wouldn't say that, passionate may be a better word :hehe:

    I have a massive headache at the moment (and it's not due to Pooks answer either), but I'll try to answer to the issues the best I can. And maybe split my answers in several posts as well if the headache won't stop.

    To the ColorMunki suggestion, go with Pookeyhead here (as I see you already did), my suggestion was merely based on "a good feeling" about xRite profilers and I do not have any personal experience with it. So it just may be "crap".

    What comes to camera color spaces, I've been under the impression that this...

    "Be aware that the sRGB/Adobe RGB selection on your camera applies to in-camera JPEG/TIFF images only.

    If you are shooting in raw mode, your raw images will not be altered or stored in any color space so the color space selection will not be a limiting factor: you'll choose the "converted" color space in whatever raw decoder you use to develop the raw images."

    ...would be correct. The quote is actually from Steve's digicams, but that's definitely not the only place where I've read it before.

    So as we are here to learn (I know I am), I'd like to know if the statement above is true or does the in-camera color space setting carry over to the RAW-files as well?

    On to Lightroom external editing settings. I'm under the impression that Lightroom does not re-sample the image when doing external editing and that the "Resolution" doesn't really matter and is just a convenience setting.

    "You probably already know this, but changing the resolution does not do anything at all to the size of the image. Regardless of what the PPI is set to, the image will still be #### X #### pixels. The only real value that setting has is to show you how large the image will be at any given resolution. Changing the resolution has no impact on the image."

    Quote above from Adobe forums, but again it's not the only place I've seen this.

    As for removing the "default" sRGB color profile, I might do that myself, even though Spyder software loads the correct profile a bit after Windows has started and it gives an "visual confirmation" of the change. But Windows is bound to do something stupid at some point...

    On to the "Big stuff". I'm actually still standing by my ProPhoto suggestion and it's of course still "take it or leave it" kind of suggestion. I'll continue using it, but you certainly don't have to and Pookeyhead does give good grounds not to go with ProPhoto.

    On the other hand I think like this. There are monitors that are capable of exceeding the AdobeRGB colorspace and it's true that they are the "top of the line" models which cost more than 500£. But since there's always a but, I'd argue that monitors don't follow these color spaces "correctly", so a monitor that can show 95% of the aRGB color space may have a larger gamut in some colors, which are "exceeding" the aRGB and entering into the ProPhoto zone.

    So even if a monitor wouldn't be able to show all of aRGBs most saturated yellows and greens (if I'm correct, those are the colors that often are "lacking"), they can show for example reds and blues over the aRGB color space.

    That's reason one for me.

    The second would be that since cameras can capture over the aRGB gamut and todays printers can print over the aRGB gamut, I don't want to "snip" away the colors that are in the photo (and can possibly be reproduced and even soft-proofed in the future with no problems).

    This of course isn't a problem if you hold on to your RAW files, so you can go back and re-edit the photo in ProPhoto RGB space if the need arises in the future.

    Soft proofing is something to consider, but since I do print my own photos (Epson 3880), I'm still making "art" and not "exact science".

    And talking about exact science, soft proofing in my mind is far from it. It's a useful tool (when used the right way), but there are way too many variables for a "regular photographer" to get 100% (not probably possible even in the best circumstances) accurate results from it. By that I mean the correct lighting, wall color in the editing room, color of your clothes when doing editing etc. Not to mention having a "perfect" printer profile to start with.

    So when I consider that yes, the camera is able to exceed the aRGB color space, but not by too much usually and even the best printer cuts the reproducible gamut even more and when the inaccuracies of the soft proofing are considered, is there really that much "blind editing" going on?

    Ok, I understand that the same kind of argument can be made for the aRGB and say that does it matter if there are more saturated colors in the print if the difference is this small. Well for most people, probably not, but I'd still like to preserve as much of the color information from the original photo as possible. For all I know this might be a "psychological" thing, but for some people it seems to make sense.

    As a non-professional I'm pretty much happy with what I get from my printer after a soft proofing (which I'm still learning), but correct me if I'm wrong, when doing a "color sensitive" work, the final proofing is always made with real prints made with the wanted printer and to the wanted paper.

    True and this will probably be true for a long time (maybe forever, but can't say), since ProPhoto RGB exceeds the visible spectrum. On the other hand, does it matter if you have a 10 liter bucket for 5 liters of berries. I'd take that over having a 4 liter bucket for 5 liters of berries.

    The answer to this is a few rows up given it's correct information. In which case it doesn't matter what color space you define in camera.

    More quotes, this time from LuLa forums:

    "ROMM (ProPhoto) has an 8bpc and 16bpc implementation, and with the limited precision offered with 8bpc with such a huge space, going from XYZ to RGB back to XYZ could produce significant errors in blacks.

    The steeper the TRC (tone response curve), the bigger the reversal error. So a TRC defined with gamma 1.8 was chosen, largely for reversibility. It's a useful characteristic because, of course, we convert captures into that space for editing and then we convert them out of the space for output."

    This would be the reasoning behind gray gamma 1.8, but since I'm not an expert, I'll let people make up their own minds.

    If I'm not wrong, the tick boxes (profile mismatches/missing profiles) are off by default in the newer versions of Photoshop, but one can have them on as well. This is something I'll have to look into more carefully (although they are just nag warnings and don't actually do anything without user input). Go with Pookeyheads suggestions here, this was just something suggested in a tutorial, so I don't have much to say about it.

    Hopefully I covered pretty much everything here and I really am interested in getting a response from Pookey or anyone else for that matter. As I said, I'm not a professional photog and I do think I have much to learn, so shoot away!

    Sincerely

    Darkened aka. Janne
     
  20. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    468
    That's fair enough.. I am. I have no animosity towards you or anyone else. I'm not here to win arguments. I love a good debate, but when there's someone in a thread who is learning, I often cringe when "opinions" are delivered as facts. Or when stuff read on other websites are disseminated as facts.




    It is. It's terrible. Having said, that, it's only terrible compared to a decent colorimeter. It's still vastly better than nothing though, and if that's all your budget can stretch to, I'd rather have that than nothing. After checking the profile with Blue Eye Pro the average delta E was 3.1. That's on the borderline of what is considered good.



    That is correct. You can process a RAW file into whatever colourspace you like regardless of camera settings... my advice would still be to set AdobeRGB though for reasons I listed in my last post.

    It is true. RAW is RAW... and it has no colour profile information embedded.


    Correct. It refers to PRINT resolution, so changing it will only change the resulting print size, but like all things.. if there's no need to change it, set it to the native print res that your camera delivers.

    Correct. It is the print resolution, not absolute image resolution, but keeping the same settings throughout the workflow is just good practice to get into. If you shoot at 240dpi.. just leave it 240dpi.

    That was my point. I've had Windows change my default sound devices at random before now.. so I'm not 100% confident it wouldn't freak out one day and do the same to my colourspace. If there's only one in your list, there's not much damage that it can do.

    If you want to use it, that's up to you, but....

    No.. that will never happen. The ProPhoto colourspace is quite massive, and if there was part of the chromicity map that deviated from sRGB to such an extent that it exceeded ProPhoto the resulting calibration would be horrific. Even a screen that can show AdobeRGB is unlikely to do this.

    However.. like I said.. you can not PROOF it, and you have no idea what the effect will be. Just because you KNOW there are "the most colours I can possibly have" it's not a good enough reason for doing it. If you can't proof what effect editing a colour image will have across it's entire gamut, you will not know until you print it. As you have a printer that can print nowhere near ProPhoto width the results are unpredictable. Only edit in a colourspace you can proof in. This is an long standing code in the industry. Doing anything else is leaving results to chance, and in the industry, that is not acceptable.

    At the moment, ProPhoto is the reserve of amateurs who are obsessed with "getting the most colour" they can from a profile, but are not understanding the consequences, much as people who do not understand why having a wide gamut screen will go on about how "vibrant" the colours are when gaming.. LOL. I've read reviews of Dell screens ON HERE... BY BIT TECH... and they PRAISE the monitor for making the foliage in Crysis look almost day-glo green. WTF??



    You don't have to. Using AdobeRGB will not be snipping anything that your camera, screen, or printer could reproduce.


    Something to consider? It's essential for accurate colour reproduction. Since when has art meant you need to sacrifice quality? You speak as if "art" means you eschew precision and quality. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

    Well.. in your mind, or not, it IS accurate if the workflow is managed well, and the screen and printer are profiled. If you have not had success with it, then you are doing it wrong. It can be deadly accurate if set up correctly... no, scratch that.. it IS deadly accurate if set up right.

    Daylight lamp.. £10... grey paint... £10... grey T shirt.. £5. Seriously though... unless you are wearing neon pink... the clothes are not an issue.

    Anyway.. DO you have a pantone accurate grey room with D65 balanced lighting? If not.. you're not even CLOSE to being able to tell if there is any advantage to using ProPhoto.

    I think you're using it because you can not get over the fact that it's bigger, and so far as colour gamut is concerned, superior.. so therefore, you can not stand to NOT use it. The reality is though.. unless you can proof it.. it's all for naught.

    Highly unlikely your camera is exceeding AdobeRGB except in extreme circumstances. Yes, there is a great deal of blind editing going on, because like most photographers, I doubt very much you merely print what comes off the camera. You'll edit.. you'll adjust levels, curves.. retouch etc.. all these changes could be making very noticeable changes to the colours outside of your screen's gamut, and you'll have no idea whatsoever. You can soft proof the profile and switch on gamut check to get the greyed out areas of course, but if you reduce colour to get rid of this, then you're lowering the colourspace to less than ProPhoto anyway... which kind of defeats the point of using it in the first place.


    Of course. And if there is a problem, you've wasted paper and ink, which is silly. Decent softproofing is accurate enough to CONFIDENTLY press print and you'll know it's right. You will NOT be accurately softproofing because you probably have not got the facilities to create custom profiles for your inks and papers. It's not JUST about profiling the screen you know... you also have to profile the paper and ink.. Unless you are profiling the entire workflow... forget it.. you're not even close to soft proofing successfully. You may as well not even bother.

    Seriously. At the level you're at.. you've no need to use ProPhoto... but if it makes you happy.. go ahead. No great harm will result... but there's absolutely no advantage to be had from it for you. It will work as a placebo for you though :)





    ProPhoto does not exceed the visible range of colours. not by a long way.

    Adobe RGB is NOT a 4litre bucket with 5 litres of berries at all. For 99.9% of people, it's a comfortable fit, with adequate wiggle room.

    You still keep using size analogies. Get over it. It doesn't matter that ProPhoto is bigger. Seriously.. it doesn't. I prefer accuracy. If you want bigger thinking it's better.. you go for it. I'm not decrying ProPhoto's superior gamut at all. I said earlier.. if they made a screen that could cover that gamut, I'd buy one immediately, even if it was £5k, and I'd be working in ProPhoto like a shot. However, no screen gets close.. so I can't proof it, and therefore I can't be accurate, and I would not be confident selling my artwork, or editing that of others when I'm being paid large sums of cash for doing both. There's the difference... I NEED accuracy, and any professional worth his or her salt does also. ProPhoto is a shiny plaything for amateurs at the moment, and has no real commercial value for the massive majority of professionals.




    Do you even know what all that means?

    That's bollox. Pure and simple. Talk to any pre press graphics worker or true professional photographer and they'll just laugh. You need accuracy, consistency and agreed standards across everything or you all end up using your own bespoke systems that may or may not work brilliantly for you, but you're screwed if you wanna sell, or work with others' work.

    D65 White point, Gamma 2.2. Thems the standards. Fact. Mess with gamma all you want if you get nice results.. FOR YOU.... but don't try sending stuff to be printed commercially or you'll be wasting shed loads of cash on reprints.

    I have. That's one of those web sites full of nerdy OCD obsessed amateurs that are obsessed with sunset pics, HDR and slow shutter speed waterfalls.. I don't even need to look to know I'm right.

     

Share This Page