Re: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space
Re: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space
- Subject: Re: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 11:53:08 +0200
Chris Murphy <email@hidden> wrote:
In Photoshop 6, it's not merely that it supports LUT-based monitor
profiles, but that it will allow any LUT-based profile (monitor, scanner,
or output) to be used as an RGB working space.
The message in that post was the same as Adobe now gives out: If you
go for spaces that use LUTs, make sure you check them out. Meanwhile,
as a rule, use matrix-based for working spaces.
Again, the point is to get the general message out, you can always
qualify. Over here on the ECI list there are discussions about
eciRGB10, too. Whether to take it further with LUT technology, to let
it remain matrix-based, or what...
What you need to keep in mind is that users have been told that the
good thing is to stay in the source space, and just reference that to
CIE instead of bringing the pixels into CIE (: meaning Lab in
practice). This has been the message that got through: Reference to
CIE because bringing into CIE is too large a step for users to grasp
(and for developers to implement -:)).
At this point you can see on this List how often people ask if they
should use their scanner space, their camera space, their monitor
space. This is a recurrent question because the underlying message
for late binding RGB workflows is not clear and never was:
a. Stay in source RGB
b. Move into linear RGB
b2. Move into linear RGB of the size of a prepress monitor
b3. Move into linear RGB greater than the size of a prepress monitor
b3. Qualified moved into LUT-based RGB
c. Move directly into Lab
These are six messages, and with countless qualifications for (b2),
(b3) and (b4). Six messages is definitely five too many when
everybody in the workflow has to get it right.
I still think Lab workflows are far more robust and require far less
educational maintenance, but what I think seems to be irrelevant,
unfortunately -:).
And yes, if you ask Barco, you will be told that a matrix-based
monitor space is fine, if you can calibrate the guns (Barco
Calibratortalk, obviously - and Quatographic with ProfileMaker
inside). Otherwise, precision is higher with LUT-based monitor
profiles.
This argument is a long one, but personally I'm starting to say that
with intents now working (well, working in more applications than
before), and stable, large gamut PS inkjets being on-line, it is
preferable to run a presentation or proof print as reflective
proofing is preferable to emissive.
As a friend wrote the other day, 'De gustibus et coloribus non
disputandum est ...' -:). Or in the new cyberlatin, 'Of taste and
color there can be no debate'.