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: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:58:23 -0700
> On Feb 21, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Mark Stegman <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> That's exactly what I'm saying however, most of the high volume digital
> printing devices do NOT have a wide gamut.
Fine, convert to a smaller gamut output space (you have to anyway). IF you have a wider gamut output space, you've got the data. Simple as that.
95% of my images start as raw. In a converter that uses a ProPhoto RGB color space gamut for processing. Some images exceed sRGB, some don't. Some exceed Adobe RGB (1998), some don't. The rendering engine ALWAYS uses ProPhoto RGB in all above cases. Rendering in anything but ProPhoto RGB only buys color clipping and makes inferior prints to the device I use often that also exceeds Adobe RGB (1998).
Concisering the source data and the the output, why would anyone using a similar workflow use anything smaller in terms of gamut than wha the raw converter is producing?
> ...and so have I but I was also talking about the relevance to cross media
> publishing where the primary concern is some sort of consistency across the
> different platforms, not getting the most 'faithful' or most colourful
> rendering.
I can still do the same with my wider gamut original data. All I've done is not clip colors that can and will clip if I use anything but ProPhoto RGB in my raw converter of choice.
> In this environment you are constrained by the 'lowest common denominator'.
We all are! I've got to deal with sRGB output all the time (to the web, mobile devices etc) and again, the original wide gamut data that again goes through ProPhoto to get to sRGB presents no issue working with this even l lower 'lowest common denominator' working space. I just don't clip when I need something a lot better. That's often the case. Again, the print output in the video, the prints you can make yourself to a similar or identical device which is neither expensive nor rare proves the wider gamut working space produces a vastly superior print. Anyone who downloads the test file can then use it on whatever devcie they wish and make their own conclusions. For output to a desktop inkjet, sRGB is awful, Adobe RGB (1998) is better but inferior to using ProPhoto RGB. Again, it is rather simple and the proof's in the print.
> The priority here is that the images are 'good enough' to
> match across a host of devices, some colour managed, some not, that will be
> viewed under a range of conditions.
That's why both of us and others implement color management in the first place. The wider gamut working space from my raw data doesn’t change that. It actually provinces more options! One reason I use a wide gamut display system much wider than sRGB.
> NOT including high-speed commercial offset.
Actually it does if we discuss the 'lowest common denominator, sRGB option so many recommend to dumb down all this topic. At least with the offset profiles I've built, they exceed sRGB gamut but here is where Adobe RGB (1998) is a better option and will produce like my video, better output if the colors are provided that do fall outside sRGB gamut we both know falls within Adobe RGB (1998) gamut.
But there are no prefect RGB working space or we'd all use just one. You've got three that are common, pretty well known and in the case of a raw workflow with one manufacturers product, used for rendering. So we have to pick. sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB. Picking the wrong one clips colors that COULD be output. Please provide a test whereby I can see the downside to using that wider gamut space renderd from my raw when converting to sRGB to make it simple. For output to the lowest common denominator: images on a web page.
> All well and good but the problem is that high volume production houses do
> not have the time for it.
The video isn't about issues with production volume house and their lack of time to produce the best possible output! The video is for the photographer shooting raw who's been told sRGB is the best answer for their output. Hogwash. The prints says otherwise. If you feel a rebuttal is necessary from the side of the production house to claim sRGB is as good as it will ever get, I look froward to that video.
> They want
> OPTIMUM quality that is predictable and consistent on a range of devices,
> not necessarily 'high' quality, at least not as we know it.
And they can get that using a wide gamut working space. If they don't know the difference between sRGB and ProPhoto RGB nor have any care to do so, I have a rather short video expactly for them and you have my permission to send it out to all such customers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JxXL_arbA
Less than 2 minutes. Perfect for those customers who have quality and attention difficulties in terms of color ;-)
> In summary, a system is only as good as it's weakest link.
Yes it is. A smaller gamut working space is a weak link when the output can improve by using a larger one.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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>) |
| | >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>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Mark Stegman <email@hidden>) |