Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wide Gamut rgb or Adobe RGB 1998  (Read 1922 times)
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517


WWW
« on: May 31, 2011, 07:32:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I have started using Canon DPP 3.9 for processing my Canon 40D raw files for processing in Photoshop CS3.  I really like the conversion I get from DPP over ACR 4.6.   I prefer to edit in ProPhoto RGB in Photoshop (16 bit files), but Canon DPP does not offer ProPhoto as an option.  It does offer Adobe rgb 1998 as well as Wide Gamut. 

1. From what I have read from Bruce Lindbloom as well as from the late great Bruce Fraser, Wide Gamut rgb could result in color shifts in the blue range of the color spectrum with some shifting to purple etc.  Is this a "real world" problem to be aware of when the files are from a source such as a Canon 40d?  My images are normally printed on an Epson GS 6000 (not mine...I only wish!).

2.  Is there a practical advantage or disadvantage to using Adobe rgb 1998 instead of Wide Gamut rgb in a 16bit processing workflow?

I have spent the better part of the day searching the internet looking for information and finally, I am here to ask these questions.  I appreciate any information or opinions.
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2011, 07:39:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Bryan,

Not a direct answer to your question - but more a comment on your preferred workflow. You say you prefer the conversion you are getting in DPP over ACR 4.6. I assume you mean at default?

If you want a quick ACR conversion that 'almost' exactly matches the DPP default rendering then have a play with the profiles Adobe now provides (I think Eric Chan developed them, or was at least otherwise involved) that are designed to mimic the 'look' that Canons picture styles produce. I think you will find that you cant tell them apart from a DPP conversion. They can give you a very quick conversion that may solve your problem and then of course you have the full control of ACR at your disposal to make meta adjustments without having to covert to Tiff.
Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2011, 07:54:39 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks Josh,

I should have been a little more specific, I am not in anyway unhappy with the results I get with ACR.  And, I do not use the default settings in either converter.  I do adjust for each image, or for each set of images separately.  There is an undescribable quality that I see in my DPP conversions that I do not see in my ACR conversions.  I suspect that when I finally upgrade to CS5 (or the current version when I do upgrade) that the newer ACR version will probably be an improvement and I will return to using ACR.  But, I need to replace my 2.4 ghz 2gb memory Windows XP machine first.  I imagine that CS5 will be a little to much for my poor computer.   So, DPP is my app of choice at the moment, and I am trying to integrate it as best as possible into my editing workflow.  Thanks for your response.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad