dclark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #16 · Epson SC-P900 colors inaccurate | |
leethecam wrote:
Actually LR does offer an alternative. (It is in the prefs which I detail below).
ProPhoto is designed as a calculative colourspace and not as a viewable or delivery space. And speak to anyone who knows their stuff and they'll always recommend viewing only in a colourspace that the monitor can handle. It's been a mantra for years when people ask what colourspace to view in - and we first ask them what their monitor can handle.
Now of course we can all just softproof and keep the files as ProPhoto in the desperate belief that one day in our lifetime, printers and screens will show this insanely huge gamut - but I'll bet my granny this won't happen, (from practical and commercial reasons).
And then of course, every time a file is uploaded to a client, or for printing, (or for the web), that file will need to be converted into something which is actually useable. Heck that's a lot of faff, and now means we have to have 2-3 times the number of copies of everything. And certainly no one should be saving ProPhoto as JPEGs because that gamut and 8-bit just don't sit nicely.
LR offers the rather clunky option of clicking the softproof button for each image, but that's a drag. But the user can go into the preferences and change the way images are displayed, (and outputted). Prefs > External Editing > and then change the two colourspace options to aRGB or sRGB. Then everything is done automatically.
There seems to be confusion as to how these things work. LR or C-1 etc look at the Raw file and do a bunch of calculations. LR we know does these using ProPhoto colourspace because it is aiming to work with the fullest data. But this on its own isn't the end of the story because we can see it on our monitors and we can't print it. It is a gamut that exceeds the range of the average human eye. So to be useful, we need to see it differently, and work with something that can be handled.
There will be those who are worried that reducing a gamut range may impact future quality possibilities. But those days are a long long way off - if ever (and I think not). But if you're ever worried about this, keep the Raw files because in 100 years we'll have better Raw processors and file types as well.
I hope anyone who professes to be "working in ProPhoto RGB" in LR is at least soft proofing when they do it. And when they export the files they're doing it as PSD or TIFF as a minimum and then softproofing those files as well. And then converting all those images to a useable gamut range for clients before delivery. Anything less than this workflow is a screw up. (I often see images from photographers who profess the merits of aRGB and deliver to their clients this way. And then the client complains they don't look good online, or the prints aren't looking the same. Bigger is not always better or the wisest choice).
I did read with amusement that one photographer said he views ProPhoto RGB and to compensate for his monitor not showing the gamut range, he watches the RGB numbers as well. To be honest, I'd rather just look at the image when I'm making aesthetic decisions.
I've seen Adobe make some silly colour management decisions in the past. I remember many years ago, having an in depth conversation with them where I showed them in real time, the difference between a LR displayed image and that same image on PS. They scratched their heads and said "oops that shouldn't happen." I'm fairly sure it was soon after that where we saw the "Soft Proof" button added. I've seen colour management issues between PS and Bridge, and even now, there is a bug which can have Bridge-created PDFs, display with the wrong colour management. Adobe's take on colour management is far from perfect.
And let's face it, LR's accuracy with quality camera profiles has never been great. In the days where I used LR as my primary Raw processor, it was a constant frustration - prompting many to create their own profiles or buy custom ones instead.
But for fun, take a look at Capture One. (Their better profiles helped my decision to jump ship). They offer just two viewing options to look at the images: aRGB and sRGB. (Although I'm sure like LR, they use ProPhoto or similar to do the behind-the-scenes processing). And similarly they only offer these two as output colourspaces - because C-1 don't regard ProPhoto as a viewing / delivery format. And I'll trust the team at Phase One / Capture One over Adobe any day of the week with respect to colour.
So yes, LR does offer a way to view and output as aRGB / sRGB. It's right there in the prefs. I can't explain why they continually hide it away instead of making it a menu-driven view option, or why they don't have one or the other as the default. Let's call it an Adobe Quirk. But it isn't helping the photography community because most just open up the app and put their images on with blind trust.
My motto with colourspace is that "bigger is not always better." Unless I'm doing a later CMYK conversion, or their are some very strong pure colours, I still view and work as sRGB so I can maximise my images to work on every printer and all web / PC use. (I monitor in an Eizo CG319X). And unless my client knows exactly what they're doing, I'm not giving them aRGB files. When I'm using 8-bit JPEGs (and in particular if they may be tweaked down the line), I am very reluctant to trust a large gamut with an 8-bit file size....Show more →
Wow, what a load of BS.
You need to learn some basics of color management. For instance, what is a profile connection space, PCS. How to use the gamut warnings in LR and PS, and soft proofing (it's not just a "clunky option"  ).
I am not going to respond to all the BS in your note but I will note that Adobe LR does NOT offer an alternative to ProPhotoRGB as a working color space. You say “But the user can go into the preferences and change the way images are displayed, (and outputted). Prefs > External Editing > and then change the two colourspace options to aRGB or sRGB. Then everything is done automatically”. That’s a major misunderstanding of what that preference is about. It is properly labeled, it’s about “External Editing”. That is how to encode color image data in the file that is transferred to another editor to be edited. It does not impact how images are displayed in either the source program or the target program. That is determined by the ICC profile for the display regardless of the gamut of the color encoding in the working color space (or the PCS). The color encoding in output files in LR and PS is determined by the selection made when exporting or saving files.
Your posts on the FM forum are characterized by shallow misinformation and bad advice presented at great length with the great authority of a “professional”. I spent 33 years of my career developing imaging technology and products, and working with “professionals” to try to show them how to use new technology. It was a PITA. You need to learn a lot more about color perception measurements, color encoding, and color management.
|
?
)