Adobe have made this a "standard" for wide gamut images and there
are plenty of photographers wandering around with the sincere
belief that processing RAW files into anything smaller will destroy
valuable data in their images.
Crap, there you go again (why do I bite...)
Adobe made this a “standard” how? Name the standards body.
Yes, why do you bite?
We were in the dying stages of a thread that has pretty conclusively
shown that Adobe's choices of colour space in out of the box copies of
Photoshop have become "standards" in the print industry.
Only a cretin would deny this -- or a colour management consultant...
On the subject of standards I find it interesting that Adobe's
ProPhotoRGB is really Eastman Kodak's ROMM RGB renamed. Did Adobe
bring anything to that working space party or just rename it so that
it sounded more like they created it?
And yes, if you are working in a Raw workflow, encoding into a color
space smaller than ProPhoto (certainly Adobe RGB (1998)) will in
many, many cases, depending on capture device and scene gamut, clip
colors you can reproduce. On a press? No. So use the ProPhoto, 16-
bit master and convert to a smaller color space for those needs. And
Martin, its Raw, not RAW (its not a bloody acronym).
You should pay more attention to the Adobe documentation Andrew. To
differentiate between RAW camera data and Camera Raw, Adobe write
"RAW" to represent the camera data -- see Technical Paper - The role
of working spaces in Adobe Applications.
Anyhow, your reply was very nearly relevant when you casually typed:
So use the ProPhoto, 16-bit master and convert to a smaller color
space for those needs.
You make it sound so easy!
The point of my original post -- the bit that you snipped -- was that
this "conversion" is problematic and that you can achieve much more
impressive results by doing this outside of Photoshop.
I'll paste it again below. If I'm mistaken, and you are able to do
stuff like image gamut mapping, device linking, device link
conversions (including RGB to CMYK) in Photoshop, feel free to
contradict me:
These images are one edit away from the imaginary colours which you
can see ruining the "blue balls" of the Twenty-Eight Ball test chart.
Somebody has to deal with this when the images are converted for
print -- how are we to explore these problems without using
synthetic targets in an Adobe recommended colour space?
Again I'd suggest looking outside of Photoshop to handle
conversions from ProPhotoRGB.
A practical solution offered by the ArgyllCMS is per-image gamut
analysis prior to conversion.
