Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ProPhoto vs. Adobe98 - a new twist on the debate?  (Read 5099 times)
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2013, 03:51:22 PM »
ReplyReply

You are not the only one to report this but I believe I've posted in the past, you should not be seeing what you reported (as I and other's never did). Glad it ended up being poor display profiles instead of the actual data!

Yeah, but I just found what seems a Photoshop preview "bug" my initial suspicion in all this strange color shifting behavior throughout the years.

I was doing further tests in ProPhotoRGB with color shifting picking other colors using PS CS3's Color Picker like I've always done and now I get this...See below.

The image has the original Xrite Colormunki Display profile embedded. It's just one thing after another with this stuff.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2013, 04:17:35 PM »
ReplyReply

So I'm wondering, am I doing something wrong? Are my test methods flawed?

Hey, I never said that PKC would not have differences when run on different color spaces....I said we had to tune the processing for the different color spaces. The differences would he been much stronger without the tuned per color space adjustments...
Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 348


« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2013, 04:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I also am surprised that very little is discussed regarding color spaces other than when to use sRGB and when to not. I'm one of the many that just sticks with prophoto because it has a wide gamut. Are there others who choose Adobe RGB because it works for them better?  When I used film I used Joseph Holmes Ekta Space. I now notice that on Joseph Holme's site he has seven different color spaces.  Who uses these?  Most of this is way above me, but I read I and try to pick up new bits and pieces.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 04:42:49 PM by HSakols » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2013, 05:41:26 PM »
ReplyReply

When I used film I used Joseph Holmes Ekta Space. I now notice that on Joseph Holme's site he has seven different color spaces.  Who uses these?  Most of this is way above me, but I read I and try to pick up new bits and pieces.

Bruce Lindbloom has an interesting (well, to me) page with Information About RGB Working Spaces. Joseph Holmes has a variety of color modification RGB profiles that change the appearance of color by assigning different flavors of color spaces to apply to an image without actually doing a color space transform...Joe's approach is, I think pretty unique...
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2013, 06:32:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Didn't intend to make the issue I'm having with PS's Color Picker as a ProPhotoRGB vs Adobe98 but it appears this particular hue of cyan appearing as powder blue in ProPhotoRGB can be fixed by converting to either AdobeRGB or my monitor space and creating the cyan background fill in those spaces.

I don't remember this ever happening before. It even happens in CS5 PS.
Logged
mlfrost
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2013, 02:04:15 PM »
ReplyReply

This may be far too simplistic a question for this experienced group but I went back and read the article "Understanding ProPhoto RGB" at this website and the "pass your mouse over" in illustrations didn't work.  Can anyone tell me why?

Thanks.

Mary Lou

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2013, 02:41:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Can anyone tell me why?
It's broken.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mlfrost
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2013, 03:17:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Can Michael Reichmann fix it?

Mary Lou
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2013, 03:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Can Michael Reichmann fix it?
He's a super hero <g>. Yes but I'm not sure what you're hoping to see. You have Photoshop? You can do this yourself on your own images. Not that the OOG overlay is all that useful or telling. The best way to see what ProPhoto brings to the party is to view 3D gamut maps:
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Shutterbug2006
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2013, 07:31:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Article Title

What color is your monitor?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/calibrate-your-monitor-theory,review-32800-5.html
Logged
Shutterbug2006
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2013, 07:32:49 PM »
ReplyReply

He's a super hero <g>. Yes but I'm not sure what you're hoping to see. You have Photoshop? You can do this yourself on your own images. Not that the OOG overlay is all that useful or telling. The best way to see what ProPhoto brings to the party is to view 3D gamut maps:
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

Great video. Everyone should watch it.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2013, 10:50:35 AM »
ReplyReply


Monitor RGB (whatever ICC profile you build that reflects the conditions of the display, calibrated or not). The article fails to outline that simple fact.
Logged

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

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2013, 01:25:44 PM »
ReplyReply

The article fails to outline that simple fact.
Suggesting an output luminance of 200cdm isn't that helpful for most photographers either.
Logged
xpatUSA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2013, 03:31:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Suggesting an output luminance of 200cdm isn't that helpful for most photographers either.

What is a "cdm" ?

Asked he, being deliberately obtuse of course, but noobs might wonder . . .
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 03:35:48 PM by xpatUSA » Logged

best regards,

Ted
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

What is a "cdm" ?
The most common abbreviation for Candela per square metre. More correctly cd/m2, but most people just use cdm
The standard measurement of luminance.

Logged
Shutterbug2006
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2013, 11:56:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Can Michael Reichmann fix it?

Mary Lou


Try using Internet Explorer - my Firefox doesn't work with the page, but IE does.
Logged
mlfrost
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2013, 01:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the suggestion.  I am on a Mac, so I'll try Safari.

Mary Lou
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad