Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop
Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop
- Subject: Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop
- From: Mark Stegman <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 00:35:26 +1000
Ben,
From the earlier discussion that took place on this forum a short time ago on "colorimetric accuracy in the field" and "camera calibration" I appreciate that you know something about colour. Or least photography. However, just because someone uses the sRGB colour space DOESN'T mean they don't understand colour. Pardon the pun but "understanding" colour is a relative term. The selection of a working colour space is a practical choice made on the basis of understanding what the constraints of the working environment are. I am not an engineer but I have worked with colour reproduction for most of my working life so I thought I understood colour. This understanding is a practical understanding. I struggle with the complex, abstract number systems that others on this forum understand. I work with the practical constraints of what is before me - what I see and might be bale to measure. I believe that, if your images are destined for a specific output condition, then why not work in a colour space that is as near to it possible, if not the same.
I DON'T understand why you would recommend NTSC as a video space rather than PAL or Rec 709 unless you want to restrict your work to those parts of the world whose broadcast systems are based on this old (?) standard from a time when full HD flat screen displays of the quality that are available today did not exist.
It seems that, like all idealists and some 'technocrats' you are waiting, like me (?) for for the impossible. You seem to think that this so-called "absolute" colour can be captured which ignores the fact that you are using a device. I fear that you may need to rip my head off and stick it on a tripod with my visual system and brain intact, attach a myriad of senses to my cerebellum and somehow convert the array of signals into some visual projection in order to achieve what you are looking for. Of course, this begs the question... how will you capture it? In my opinion, the price is too high anyway.
I'll stick my neck out here ( and lose my head) as I know there are a lot of learned people reading this forum who really DO understand the science of capturing, measuring, monitoring and reproducing colour but as I understand it "absolute" colour spaces are based on a set of numbers derived from testing the human visual system. I am told there are many more than the ones we use in ICC colour management systems. They attempt to describe human perception within a number system. I say "attempt" because, if any of them were 100% accurate then there would be only one!
Many applications allow you to 'work' in these colour spaces. Even in Photoshop you can work in Lab however, the beautiful devices they have built for us to view our images cannot reproduce all of the colours we can see and in all the of the environments we may encounter, although we may be 'fooled' into thinking so through the phenomena of chromatic adaptation. Don't forget, even a monitor needs a profile. Even if you did have a monitor to preview your images on you still have REPRODUCE them on another device.
This is why standardised viewing conditions and all the other standards are so important. They account for the variables that affect our AGREED PERCEPTION of colour. We might all experience the world differently. After all, I live in the southern hemisphere so everything is upside down! When we reproduce images we do it to communicate our experience with others. Standards describe what is necessary for controlling the environment so that we might agree on what is before our eyes in this process of communication (and not end up in court!). It is not about trying to capture and recreate a facsimile reproduction of a scene. Scenes which are constantly changing with every tick of the clock.
If you want to work in an absolute colour space I believe you will have to work only in numbers and never rely on what any device simulates. Mind you, never being able to see your work is a limitation but sometimes it's a necessity. This is how I learned colour reproduction in the printing trade. We always went by the numbers. Many camera operators, and later scanner operators got very good at reproducing colour separations that needed little or no correction. We never saw a proof until the final product came off the press. No complaints. Well, not many.
The point is that they UNDERSTOOD colour and its REPRODUCTION very well. At least for the purposes of the targeted process? You could have benefitted from the experience.
Mark Stegman
P.S. Reply to all to post to the forum.
On 02/08/2013, at 3:48 PM, Ben Goren <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Mark Stegman <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would *never* use ProPhoto
>
> ProPhoto is probably the least-worst profile to develop to with Adobe Camera Raw, but, yes, it's not a very good working space.
>
> If you're preparing files for the Web or for people who don't understand color, use sRGB.
>
> If you're preparing files for people who understand color, use AdobeRGB.
>
> If you're doing your own stuff and you know what you're doing, use BetaRGB.
>
> If other circumstances apply -- NTSC for video, etc. -- you'll know that that's the case and you really should know what you're doing.
>
> Personally, I'm waiting for the day when we can work directly in an absolute color space such as XYZ, and work with device gamuts (and mapping from the one to the other) rather than color spaces. I'd like my camera to record the actual absolute luminance in the scene, and let me decide how I want to compress that into a reflective print or a backlit display or whatever. We're getting there...but slowly, in a very roundabout fashion....
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
_______________________________________________
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