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: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:49:56 -0400
Thank's for your reply, Marco.
It's just that, I find many qualities to eciRGBv2. A transfer function designed around L*, a D50 white point, a set of relatively wide gamut primaries, chosen, as far as I can tell, to espouse ISOCoatedv2 (Fogra39L or GRACoL2006_C1). Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Among my other favorites are still BetaRGB and ColormatchRGB for their D50 policies. But it could be argued that, to a large extent, it doesn't make much difference anymore what a given white point is (for matrix-based systems) as long as one does not venture out too far from Photoshop; everything in Photoshop CSx is white point relative now, no matter how stubbornly one tries to work around it.
I like sRGB for its "no-nonse", "average" monitor-like qualities, something akin to a superset of ColormatchRGB, when you think of it. Except for the D65 white point and the 2.2 gamma. I have to admit it took me a while to get over sRGB's D65 white point. As I said, within Photoshop, in the current scheme of things, D65 or D50 is irrelevant, whether the monitor is physically calibrated to D50 or D65 chromaticities. I don't think I'm shooting from the hip, here. I'll admit, like Edmund Ronald once said, I'm a "print guy" and, hence, never outgrew D50. So, anything with the D50 label on it is bound to please me. For all its "qualities", eciRGBv2 would be my natural "evolution" from sRGB (the same way that SWOP2006 is an evolution from SWOPv2, rather than a revolution, in the words of Don Hutchison). But I would never, ever, use eciRGBv2 for everyday work, to blindly tag the loads of mystery meat RGB images I open up in Photoshop. For those images, I have sRGB -- thank you HP and Microsoft! For anything I'd consider "superior", like some of the RAW images I capture painstakingly with my D100, cherish and open up in ACR, I'd love one day to have the choice of selecting eciRGBv2 as the destination space. Why not? I'm still not convinced I need to systematically send everything to ProPhoto for all those relatively unsaturated landscape and portrait images I open up in ACR. Seems like an overkill. Like using a hammer to kill a fly.
My oil on the flame...
Roger
>
> Roger Breton wrote:
>
> >I knew eciRGBv2 was good to for something! Is it too much to ask that
> ACR
> >directly supports it? After all, it's not a mom and pop color space.
>
> It would be nice, Roger. One day perhaps we will be given the option to
> choose our preferred RGB working space in Camera Raw.
>
>> Though I agree that it would open the door, in inexperienced hands, to
>> possibly using wildly inappropriate color profiles, such as ones for
>> scanners.
>
> Marco Ugolini
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3509 (20081009) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.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