• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998


  • Subject: Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998
  • From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:07:48 -0800

For what it's worth, I've been using ProPhoto RGB for pretty much all my work for about three years now.

You certainly aren't losing anything by staying in ProPhoto, and if you're working in 16-bit, there's almost certainly no benefit to converting to Adobe RGB as an intermediate step, and doing will definitely clip some printable colors.

Also, don't assume that you need to use perceptual rendering. I find that i prefer relcol+BPC on about 85% of images...

Bruce

At 1:14 AM -0800 1/11/04, Steve Upton wrote:
At 12:18 PM -0800 1/10/04, David B. Miller wrote:
Using PS CS's camera RAW I open my Canon EOS 10D images. I have been choosing ProPhoto RGB. I keep everything in 16 bit. Then the file is sent to my Epson 9600 with Ultrachrome inkset and matte black ink.

My question is, what am I loosing, if anything in the final print, by being in ProPhoto RGB the entire time? Should I save the RAW file in Adobe RGB 1998 instead? I don't believe the Epson 9600 can print the gamut of the ProPhoto RGB.

If your original image colors are outside of Adobe RGB then there may be benefits from using ProPhoto RGB. At the moment there are no perceptual intents that will map colors from camera or working space profiles as you move to smaller spaces - excluding print profiles. In other words when you move from camera/scanner profiles or large working space profiles to smaller working spaces, colorimetric intents are the only ones available - with the associated gamut clipping...

So, there is a sound workflow in using large working spaces to "normalize" out of larger gamut camera/scanner profiles. Then, leave the gamut compression to the perceptual intent of the print profile. Assuming the file is in 16 bits it may be the highest quality workflow to use.

v4 profiles may help with more standardized perceptual mapping and more support for perceptual tables out of device spaces...

--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

References: 
 >ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998 (From: "David B. Miller" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998 (From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Roland and the proper Rip
  • Next by Date: Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998
  • Previous by thread: Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998
  • Next by thread: Re: ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1998
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread