RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
- Subject: RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:23:05 -0500
Mark,
I confess I have sRGB tattooed all over my face…
I hope that, as more and more people become educated on color, they learn to develop the skills required to choose the best color spaces for their work. Too many times, though, I see users sticking to AdobeRGB for no other reasons than the fact that it has Adobe’s name on it. Then they become accustomed to that “look” and learn to like it. Me, I say, if the scene hasn’t been rendered to AdobeRGB from some external spaces like a camera or a scanner space in the first place, if all the user does is blindly assigns AdobeRGB on open to random images, then I think it does more harm than good. Many images with skin tones, for instance, tend to look awfully red when blindly assigned AdobeRGB? In my humble work, 8 times out of 10, I end up removing AdobeRGB and work with sRGB instead. But I’m not stupid, as I teach my students, the first order of business when opening up images with embedded profiles is to honor the intent of the color. Then, it’s a matter of analyzing the scene and deciding the best course of action, which may be to retain AdobeRGB.
Best / Roger
From: Mark Stegman [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: 20 février 2015 19:13
To: Roger Breton
Cc: ColorSync
Subject: Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
Roger, Andrew et al,
Roger, You are good on colour and related issues but I am not so sure about your movies. I believe you are thinking of the Medusa, a Gorgon of Greek mythology that could turn men to stone if they look into her eyes. She was ultimately slain by Perseus who used a mirror to locate the beast before beheading her in one fell swoop. If my memory serves me correctly this has been portrayed in a couple versions of Clash of the Titans and/or Jason and the Argonauts. Both childhood favourites. I am not a biblical expert but if it had anything to do with Sodom and Gomorrah we'd be more likely to be buggered (a popular term in the vernacular here) which is probably appropriate in the context of this discussion.
Having worked in education for a couple of decades trying to teach colour management to the uninitiated I can relate to your perspective. Getting the message across to the operators when there are inherent problems in the DNA of certain molecules just makes things difficult: "It's supposed to work like this but..." only brings a glaze to their eyes. You only hear about the problems from the fussy ones because colour reproduction for most users falls into the 'good enough' category. Just try convincing them of the benefits of wide gamut monitor. Photographers will spend thousands on a capture device and lens and display their work on a phone. Monitors capable of rendering AdobeRGB are still hard to sell. Monitors that display wider gamuts do not exists AFAIK.
Which raises the point of just how relevant Adobe RGB is. I don't want to get into the argument about wide gamut, 16 bit editing which I know has its benefits but this is for a select few. I have always had a problem with the benefits of wide gamut colour spaces when the majority of workflows are either low gamut print or monitor based, desktop or mobile. Many major printing workflows have standardised on sRGB because there are fewer 'surprises' during the conversion process as a result of the severe clipping that can occur using colorimetric RIs with wider gamut RGB colour spaces. It also means that there is more consistency across multiple electronic devices including tablets and phones. Add to that the pressure of turn-around times in a struggling economic environment and there is usually little time to 'play'. Operators get less than a minute an image for editing in some workflows. a lot of it is bath processed. The printing industry has been hanging on by its fingernails for a long time for a multitude of reasons. One of the few glimmers of light has been the growth in cross media publishing and the sustained production of printed catalogues. Using a colour space that is broadly consistent across multiple platforms brings the results much closer to what I thought were the original aims of ICC colour management systems.
In short, wide gamut colour spaces like Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB (Andrew's favourite) are problematic except for the RIP experts and aficionados of the photoimaging, print making and the fine art world (in which I would arguably include myself). You don't get major complaints because the 'nuances' of colour management inconsistencies are simply lost on the vast majority of operators, including a lot of self appointed, so-called 'experts'. Just have a look at some of the curious advice on other forums like the Linkedin Photoshop Group. When it is problem you call the vendor or the consultant.
I'll finish by asking some more silly questions...
1. If there are inherent problems with Adobe RGB and they are (arguably) significant (and ones that only experts understand?) why not develop a new profile e.g. AdobeRGB (2015), or even AndrewRGB (2015), RogerRGB (2015), as an alternative? One that is more in tune with the demands of our time? Is it really that hard?
2. Has sRGB already taken on this role?
As it stands it may be an argument that is truly 'academic' as it seems to me that Adobe RGB is being gradually(?) pushed into a corner.
Regards,
Mark
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Roger Breton <email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden> > wrote:
What are you talking, I "thrive" on starting you up ;-)
I agree, as far as "usage" is concerned, the current implementation of the Media White Point for display profile "works". It's a hideous kludge, IMO.
But the moment one starts digging into the technical side of things, as other have remarked before me, it's wrong, plain wrong, Andrew, and I don't have admiration for those who accepted this "compromise" wherever it was conceived of.
/ Roger
There are so many of these hiccups this throughout color management, I'm not sure it's worth starting (me) up again. ;-) In the grand schemes of things, we've gone 17 years with a working space that was useful early on, lesser so today and without AFAIK major complaints from end users.
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Roger Breton <email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden> > wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> I'm not going to hold my breath for a change of this magnitude (10, on
> the Richter scale) to happen.
> So many cons for so little pros, in appearance?
_______________________________________________
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
| References: | |
| | >Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Lars Borg <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Mark Stegman <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Lars Borg <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Mark Stegman <email@hidden>) |