Re: On the use of wide-gamut RGB working spaces
Re: On the use of wide-gamut RGB working spaces
- Subject: Re: On the use of wide-gamut RGB working spaces
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:15:19 -0700
On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
I would say "not necessary" instead of "not justified". An image can be
stored in ProPhoto RGB even without taking up a very significant
portion of
its available gamut. That would not hurt anything. It's advisable to
work in
16 bits in that case, though.
Fair enough: Not necessary.
2. Ultra-wide spaces are harder to do subtle edits in and should only
be used with 16-bit files.
While I understand that caution in theory, in practice I have not
suffered
ill effects from moves that appeared "excessive" following a small edit.
Again, as long as one works in 16 bits.
I didn't say too hard, just not as nice, not as easy. Yes, 16-bit,
always.
3. Use the smallest color space needed to encompass all the colors in
the original with a little room to spare--it makes editing easier.
Could you please provide a practical example that proves such an
advantage?
I'm open to being persuaded by convincing evidence. Perhaps you are
able to
spare an image or two that prove the point, if that is OK.
Will scrounge through my files and send to you. Same idea as above:
Edits just go more easily--for me, anyway. When I make a small move
it really is small, not a large jump.
5. There's nothing wrong with sRGB or special about Adobe RGB, but
customers still associated the latter with "quality" even when
there's no need for its larger gamut (which is principally in the
greens.) Nonetheless, I hesitate to convert form the former to the
latter; it's illogical and gains nothing.
Agreed. Going from a smaller space to a larger one does not *add*
anything
to the file. It pushes the existing image elements around within a
larger
environment, but it cannot create detail that doesn't already exist.
Whereas
an image file that is natively in a larger space possibly possesses
(depending on how much of that space it occupies) saturated detail that
*cannot* exist in a smaller color space.
Of course, and transparencies often contain colors well beyond the
limits of Adobe RGB. It's not for nothing that Kodak created ProPhoto
RGB, though it can be serious overkill.
6. The perceived need for ultra-wide color spaces is sometimes
(though not always) driven by poor judgment that demands artificial,
oversaturated color.
Sometimes -- but often it's just because the user intends to preserve
all
the colors that were produced, say, in a rendered Raw file or in a
high-quality scan.
You bet: I archive most RGB scans in large spaces when there's any
question of clipping, with the rest in Adobe RGB--simply because it's
not too big nor too small and, frankly, people are familiar with it.
But I also see a lot of terrible scans (by others, of course) that if
properly done would have fit comfortably into ColorMatch RGB (a now
unfashionable space) but in their distorted form need a megaspace to
avoid clipping. I also see many RAW images that are pumped up to the
point that they SEEM to require a bigger space than they really do.
The cure is properly editing the RAW image or setting up the scanner
in the first place so one can see what the image really needs, e.g.,
turning on Gamut Warning and trying different destination spaces in
Proof Setup. If an image is oversaturated from the start (or
undersaturated, for that matter) it is very hard to make this judgment.
Mike Strickler
MSP Graphic Services
423 Aaron St. Suite E
Cotati, CA 94931
707.664.1628
email@hidden
www.mspgraphics.com
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden