Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Colour Space choice  (Read 9146 times)
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« on: September 26, 2006, 04:46:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Forgive me for asking a rather dumb question; my knowledge of colour management is limited.  Also, forgive me for a rather long post, but I have to explain what I mean in my own terms, since I don´t have the "pro" terminology.

AFAIK, Lightroom B4 still uses the ProPhoto working space, and this isn´t user selectable.  As long as it renders 12 bit raw images internally, no problem.  However, when one either imports jpeg´s, or exports to PS for editing for web use, one has to fit the info into 8 bits per colour.

Now, since ProPhoto is a very wide space, most jpeg´s from simple digicams, and certainly not sRGB images for the web, can use the full gamut of ProPhoto, and so the representation of such images can use only a part of the full space of 2^(12*3) possible data points.  Yet, this smaller, used part must be transferred to the space of 2^(8*3) possible points, and I have a feeling that this is somewhat similar to enlarging and cropping a negative where the subject doesn´t fill the frame: there are quality losses.

If this is correct, wouldn´t a smaller working space, like the Adobe RGB be more "efficient" in this respect; it uses the same 2^(12*3) possible data points to represent a smaller gamut, and so a given image would "fill the frame" better, so to speak.

And now, finally I´ll try to get to my question: If I am right, won´t the risk of posterization in the shadows actually be greater when using a very large working space and then converting to 8 bits in a smaller one, like an sRGB jpeg?  And if it is so,

1) wouldn´t it be a good idea to be allowed to select the final, small space already when exporting to PS?

2) wouldn´t it be a good idea to allow a user who has to work with lots of jpeg originals to select a smaller internal working space within LR.

Photoshop allows the user to do both, and PS and LR are both Adobe products.  So, why no choice in LR?  Is this a non-problem in practice, or (horror....) have I got it all mixed up?

.....................

Edit: I see now that if I don´t select "Edit in PSCS2" in LR B4, but instead just "Export", I can select both file format and colour space.  While it is a more roundabout way than going directly to PS, it does take care of my point 1) above.  Still, I see no way around 2).
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 04:57:06 PM by Per Ofverbeck » Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2006, 08:02:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd read this first:The Role of Working Spaces in Adobe Applications
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Then keep in mind that LR uses Pro Photo primaries for RGB and a linear gamma (1.0). So technically it's not ProPhoto RGB.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2006, 09:53:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd read this first:The Role of Working Spaces in Adobe Applications
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Then keep in mind that LR uses Pro Photo primaries for RGB and a linear gamma (1.0). So technically it's not ProPhoto RGB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And also each photograph has a different gamut, hence requires a different size color space.  Although you may not need to adjust the color space to each specific photograph you convert (although this is also an option) you need to make sure that your photograph's gamut does not exceed that of the color space you convert it to.

ALain
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2006, 10:02:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Then keep in mind that LR uses Pro Photo primaries for RGB and a linear gamma (1.0). So technically it's not ProPhoto RGB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew is an expert in color management, but the above statement could be misinterpreted. The camera raw type converter in lightroom uses gamma 1.0, but the histograms and RGB readouts are those of sRGB (gamma 2.2). Actually, I think Lilghtroom merely stores metadata for the image and the actual conversion is done at the time when the image is exported.

Since Lightroom uses a bit depth of 16, there is no risk of posterization with the ProPhotoRGB chromaticities. These matters are discussed in Podcast 8 on the Adobe
Lightroom web site.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2006, 08:06:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Right. But the thing to keep in mind is that ALL image processing (RAWs or rendered) are being applied in this Melissa RGB space. Import an sRGB image, it's processing pipeline is Melissa RGB. On export, you can pick your three encoding color spaces (or the original rendered space is honored).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2006, 10:51:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Bingo!  Three very informative and insightful answers to my ramblings.  Thank you all!

Andrew, your text certainly improved my understanding a lot; I´ve downloaded and saved it.  Your "balloon" description on p.6 seems to be exactly what I was trying to say in less pedagogical terms; also you state explicitly that 8 bit images imported into a large space may suffer banding; exacly what I was worrying about when importing untagged digicam jpeg´s (I´m not worried about my raw files).

Bill, I´ve missed these podcasts altogether.  I´ve just subscribed, and also downloaded No. 8, but haven´t had the time to listen yet; I´ll do so.  I´m a bit worried when you say that the histograms in LR are related to another space than the actual working one.  Of course, that´s the situation with the built-in histogram in my Nikon D200; it shows the distribution in a jpeg image, not the actual raw one.  I thought LR had a better solution than that.

Alain, I´ve seldom worried about my camera images falling outside the gamut of Adobe RGB, which is what I used in ACR - PS before LR.  But some images of red or yellow flowers have indeed suffered from red channel clipping; probably an indication that I should have worried...  The idea of actually selecting working space individually never occurred to me before; Andrew also seems to hint at that procedure (using ACR) on p. 11 of his text.

To sum up, at the very end of Andrew´s text, he states that "...a very large gamut working space isn´t automatically the best option for all situations or something you can ´set and forget´ ".  Now, isn´t "set and forget" exactly what LR at present forces us to do?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 10:52:01 AM by Per Ofverbeck » Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2006, 10:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To sum up, at the very end of Andrew´s text, he states that "...a very large gamut working space isn´t automatically the best option for all situations or something you can ´set and forget´ ".  Now, isn´t "set and forget" exactly what LR at present forces us to do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a way yes. Unlike ACR where you have a Histogram which represents the encoding color space you'll eventually use (and you can toggle it to see the effect), LR doesn't operate in this way to simplify the process. Personally I'd like to be able to tell LR I want to see the numbers and histogram based one of the three working spaces it supports just like I can tell ACR to update this based on one of the four working space it supports. I don't think I'll see that.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2006, 11:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Personally I'd like to be able to tell LR I want to see the numbers and histogram based one of the three working spaces it supports just like I can tell ACR to update this based on one of the four working space it supports. I don't think I'll see that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Plus a RAW data histo, possibly in 'stops', but I don't think we'll see that either.

This issue does make the whole highlight and shadow clipping feature a questionable feat, no?
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2006, 09:45:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bingo!  Three very informative and insightful answers to my ramblings.  Thank you all!

Bill, I´ve missed these podcasts altogether.  I´ve just subscribed, and also downloaded No. 8, but haven´t had the time to listen yet; I´ll do so.  I´m a bit worried when you say that the histograms in LR are related to another space than the actual working one.  Of course, that´s the situation with the built-in histogram in my Nikon D200; it shows the distribution in a jpeg image, not the actual raw one.  I thought LR had a better solution than that.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Per,

Listen to the Podcast and let us know what you think. These issues are discussed by Thomas Knoll (architect of Photoshop and ACR) and Mark Hamburg (leader of the Lightroom team). In ACR, Mr. Knoll chose to allow the user to designate a workspace for the preview histogram and readouts. Personally, Andrew's and Mr. Knoll's approach is more to my liking, but Mr. Hamburg wanted to keep things simple

Billl
Logged
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2006, 04:25:03 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, tonight I got the 41 mins to listen to the podcast.  I would be a liar if I said I understood all of it, but as you say, there seems to be a tradeoff between flexibility and simplicity involved.  So my first reaction was to feel that I as a user had lost some options for fine-tuning.

But then I thought a bit more.  Photoshop has a comprehensive (some might say forbidding) diallog for colour settings, and ACR at least allows the choice of colour space that was lost in LR.  And what have I, as a half-learned user, done with that freedom of choice?  I´ve read Blatner & Fraser, and set the whole thing up according to their recommendations, ready to live happily everafter, "set and forget" in Andrew´s words.  I used Adobe RGB as my working space, and until I read Alain´s answer above, it never occurred to me that I might adapt the choice of workig space to individual images.

With LR, instead of filling out a form according to Blatner´s & Fraser´s recipe (and I´m sure it is a good one, far better than anything I might have set on my own), now I seem to have the form already filled in by Mark Hamburg, with Thomas Knoll´s (possibly grudging) consent...   I still think their choice should be better than any I might have stumbled upon on my own.

In the end, what matters to me is how well I can make my edited images look the way I want them to, and the ultimate value of any tool lies in how well it works for me in that pursuit.  I´m simply not in a position yet to pass any judgment on LR.  I never used Beta 3 for more than some experimenting; it was far too slow and limited to commit my main workflow to it.  Beta 4 is a big step forward, and I´ve actually started using it as my main DAM and raw converter software.  And I like it a lot, I was just a bit wary about what an extremely wide working space might do to some images.

As I said, I´m not worried about raws: I send them to PS in 16 bits mode, and stay there all the way till I´m finished editing, and want them as jpeg´s.  It´s those images that are captured as jpeg´s that I´m worried about, and obviously they are not the ones that have the best chances of attaining that "Ansel Adams-look" to begin with.  So, possibly I worry unnecessarily; only more experience with LR will tell me which.

Anyway, I suppose I shold now select ProPhoto as my working space in Photoshop as well, to avoid an extra conversion into a smaller space (Adobe RGB)?
Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2006, 04:38:59 PM »
ReplyReply

You have less options but you really don't have to change anything if you don't want to.

IF you use LR and a round trip to Photoshop (NOT export), you'll end up in ProPhoto RGB IF you ask it to honor the LR edits. You'll notice you have three options (from existing rendered images, not RAW) when you attempt to open a file from LR. If you want to edit the original, it's color space is maintained so if the original were in sRGB, that's what gets opened in Photoshop. If you did work to it and you want to honor the edits, you'll get ProPhoto RGB. This might be an "issue" for existing rendered images. If you select a RAW, there's only one option and you end up with a rendered image in ProPhoto RGB (not a biggie).

If you export, then you can select one of the three RGB working space supported.

If you have Photoshop set to the preserve policy (and you're OK turning off the warning for profile mismatch), you'll be fine with any of the above scenario’s as long as when you work in LR, you have an idea of what you'd like to do with respect to existing rendered images. Edit in LR, no matter what the original color space, you're going to be now working in Pro Photo RGB (unless you tell LR not to honor/use the edits).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2006, 09:04:33 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, if I read you right, I can import a jpeg (legacy or digicam) into LR and make some adjustments in the Develop module, just for viewing in the Library or Slideshow.  If I later find such an image worthy of printing or using in another way, I can prepare it by selecting "Edit in PSCS2" and choose NOT to use these adjustments.  Then the original opens in PS, in its original colour space (if PS is set up to honour the profile), just as if I had used Bridge, or Finder, to get it.  I do lose the minor work I did in adjusting it, but I work fresh from the original.

If this is correct, it kind of solves my problem, because it is exactly what I´ve done until now with my jpegs: I´ve saved the originals (to another disk), edited a copy and kept that one as jpeg in my library for screen viewing and cataloging.  Once I selected an image for more careful work and use, I always got the original out and started afresh from that (because my library version was now jpegged twice, and I didn´t want to pile up the artefacts).

One thing to be careful with: If, after reworking in PS, I happen to use the "Save" command there, I will have overwritten my jpeg original with the edited version...  Or, will LR have created a "*_edit.jpg" copy of my original "*.jpg" file before sending to PS? (can easily find that out myself, of course...).

Again, thank you all!  I think I now understand a bit more abut what´s going on.  What I need now is a lot more hands-on experience with LRB4, and I hope to get that eventually....
Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2006, 10:30:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Posted this by mistake elsewhere. Anyway...

There's a bit of a wrinkle, at least in the beta I have.

If you select 8-bit (more widely supported) in preferences, the files come in, in sRGB. If you select 16-bit, you get ProPhoto RGB. Messy and needs to be clarified in the preferences. True for RAW and rendered images when you ask to use LR edits.

A bit more flexible I guess, but not clear at all!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2006, 10:53:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
There's a bit of a wrinkle, at least in the beta I have.

If you select 8-bit (more widely supported) in preferences, the files come in, in sRGB. If you select 16-bit, you get ProPhoto RGB.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, just tried, and mine didn´t work the same way: when selecting an sRGB-tagged jpeg and "Edit in PSCS2", I did get the profile mismatch warning, and it said the image was indeed sRGB, so I could choose to stay there.  And my LR preference was (and is) set to 16-bit tiff (probably only applies to raw´s).  It seems, slightly different builds of the same beta may be around; mine was downloaded from Adobe a few hours after the announcement.  I suppose you get "preview" betas that we mere mortals never get to see....  

Btw, I got to choose between editing a copy and editing the original (the two choices that are grayed out when selecting a raw file), so as long as I stay awake and sober, I shouldn´t ruin any original.
Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2006, 10:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

My beta is probably different (don't ask).

With an existing rendered image, you have the three options (only one with RAW). In my beta, if you pick an option that uses any LR corrections, you get sRGB or ProPhoto RGB depending on the preferences (which isn't spelled out and kind of silly). If you use the original or a copy of the original, you should end up with the same color space of that file when you open it in the external editor (which makes sense).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
seanmcfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2006, 12:47:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My beta is probably different (don't ask).


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow Andrew. That's almost like begging to be asked. Thanks for this informative post.
Logged

Prof. Jewell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2006, 02:08:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Per Ofverbeck,Sep 28 2006, 03:25 PM
"...I was just a bit wary about what an extremely wide working space might do to some images....


Anyway, I suppose I shold now select ProPhoto as my working space in Photoshop as well, to avoid an extra conversion into a smaller space (Adobe RGB)?"


I would suggest that this concern be taken a little more seriously. See:

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?W...gSpaceInfo.html

for example, "...The Lab Gamut Efficiency % indicates the percent of the entire Lab Gamut (i.e. all colors visible to the eye) that the working space encompasses. As a general rule, a larger value is superior to a smaller value, since it defers any gamut compression and color clipping decisions to a later time. The higher the efficiency, the less likely it is that a color may be clipped in the capture/encoding process.

The Coding Efficiency % indicates the relative portion of the encoding space (e.g. RGB) that represents real colors. Some of the larger volume working spaces contain many RGB triplets for which there is no physical counterpart, and therefore could be considered wasteful.

These two efficiency metrics are perhaps better understood by looking at an example comparing ProPhoto with sRGB. ProPhoto captures a relatively large portion of the Lab Gamut (91%), but in order to do that, it must sacrifice much of its coding space to waste (13%). By contrast, sRGB captures a smaller portion of the Lab Gamut (35%), but every single RGB triplet represents a real color, so there is no waste. As you can see, these two efficiencies are at odds with each other — as you strive for higher Lab Efficiency, you generally lose in Coding Efficiency..."   (from: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?W...SpaceInfo.html)

Which, by the way, raises the question in my mind: Why does there seem to be so much resistence to Beta RGB as the medium sized color space of choice? As I understand it Adobe RGB (1998) is based upon a mistake--perhaps serendipitous for desktop publishing--but a mistake none the less.
Logged
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2006, 07:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
....I would suggest that this concern be taken a little more seriously. See:

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?W...gSpaceInfo.html
......
Which, by the way, raises the question in my mind: Why does there seem to be so much resistence to Beta RGB as the medium sized color space of choice?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OUCH!  Even more problems....  

Seriously, that Lindbloom site has a lot of valuable info.  I won´t pretend to understand every word of it, but his two efficiency measures seem to condense quite a lot into two simple figures. The gamut efficiency tells me how much "bigger" the ProPhoto space really is compared to AdobeRGB, which is what I used before LR: quite a lot...

The coding efficiency seems to be a rough measure of exactly the effect I was concerned about at the start of this thread.  Only a rough one, though, since different photographic subject matters use differing "sub-gamuts" of what BL calls "real colors".  I happen to be mainly interested in nature, so greens are quite important to me (and there AdobeRGB is worlds apart from sRGB; BL tells me why).  A portrait or fashion photographer would have different priorities, I suppose.  The only way to reach a personal, valid judgment here must be to work with a space for a while and see if I get in trouble with my usual subject matter, and that´s what I am trying to do right now.

As for "Beta RGB" and its advantages, I have to confess I never heard about that space before (I did try Bruce RGB for a short while, but even Bruce Fraser himself seems to have dropped it).  As a user with limited knowledge, I am afraid I cannot start looking into several different spaces and try to assess them; I have enough already, trying to sort out those three that are now sorta forced upon me: 1) sRGB, which simpler digicams use, and into which I have to convert all web-oriented images, lest they look flat on people´s monitors. 2) AdobeRGB, which can be produced by most dSLR´s, and which was "sold" to me as a good compromise of a working space.  3) ProPhotoRGB, which comes with Lightroom, and so has to be at least "traversed" by all images imported and processed there.

Yet another?  No, thank you.....
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 07:08:24 AM by Per Ofverbeck » Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2006, 09:10:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Forgive the quick copy and paste (I archived my email to this list). There are some serious anti 16-bit, ProPhoto likes on this list which for years has asked for images that show a 16-bit advantage and a "ultra wide gamut" advantage hence this set of images and instructions:

--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, DMargulis@... wrote:
> Also, next month I will be teaching two advanced courses where I am being
> joined by people who are roughly as good at color correction as I am. If useful
> images surface before then, we can certainly bring them to that group's
> attention. For example, Vladimir Yelisseev provided a very useful image on the
> question of whether to acquire images into ProPhoto RGB.

Here are two .DNG files you can acquire and see what ProPhoto RGB brings to the party. You are welcome to download one or both from my public iDisk (info below).

I acquired both through Adobe Camera RAW using Camera RAW defaults. Bring one in as ProPhoto RGB 16-bit. Bring one in as Adobe RGB (1998) and for torture sRGB. Do a small saturation move (plus or minus) of say only +7 on each, view the images at 100%. What do you see? Try Channel Mixer and other edits that affect color/tone.

Both images were shot at ISO 100 on a Canon 5D but I have another file from Jeff Schewe from a Mark II that shows the same issues in yellows and greens.

Convert the Adobe RGB (1998) file to LAB and do the saturation move too (interesting but requires a conversion getting us back full circle to doing this in 8-bit or high bit). No need  for this move if you stick with the ProPhoto RGB file. Additionally, viewing the image in ColorThink shows it clips in Adobe RGB (1998) and that Adobe RGB (1998) is also too small a color space for output to an Epson running K3 inks (the gamut of the inks in useful areas is larger). Have fun.

Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/

My public iDisk:

thedigitaldog

Name (lower case) public
Password (lower case) public

Public folder Password is "public" (note the first letter is capitalized).

To go there via a web browser, use this URL:

http://idisk.mac.com/thedigitaldog-Public
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2006, 04:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Just made the experiment Andrew suggested.  I get lots of flower images like these myself, so the situation as such is familiar, although I´ve never tried other working spaces than Adobe RGB.

My concerns, however, weren´t with dSLR raw files (which I always open as 16 bits and stay there as long as possible); they surely will benefit from a larger space when editing.  I was worried about my digicam jpeg´s.  However, my worries have largely evaporated since starting this thread.  First, I was told that I could view these images within LR and adjust them for best viewing there, then send the original to PSCS2 *without* these adjustments and without conversion to ProPhoto, and all this within LR´s normal workflow.  Second, the jpeg´s I´ve acquired in the meantime have failed to show any kind of problems I didn´t already have with jpeg´s well before LR.

So, my conclusion is, I was being a bit of a colour hypochondriac; now I have kind of recovered, I hope.  In the process, I have learned a lot more about colour management and the properties of different workspaces, and that they can be individually chosen to help "difficult" images.  Quite a decent harvest from "sowing" a simple, and not too well formulated question....  Thank you all!
Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad