Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How to edit RAW images in the ProPhoto color space?  (Read 6572 times)
*Rich
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: August 28, 2013, 09:49:00 PM »
ReplyReply

My Dell UltraSharp monitor is color calibrated and my calibration software indicates it can show 99% of the Adobe RGB color space. So I have been using that color space in Photoshop editing.

I want to begin processing my RAW images in ProPhoto RGB, but I was wondering how to accurately edit the wider gamut of colors (than Adobe RGB) -- which I would not be able see on my monitor? Do you just guess which colors will not block-up when printed? Do I have to rely solely on printing lots of proofs now, rather than relying on what I see on my monitor? Thanks.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2013, 11:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

As you edit, when moving a slider (say Saturation or Vibrance), as soon as you stop seeing the image update (change), back off! You are affecting colors you can't see (Out of Gamut). That's your sign to move carefully.
Logged

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

Posts: 5


« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2013, 12:16:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Andrew, never knew that.

But what I am concerned about with ProPhoto RGB is that not all of the color space can be represented on my monitor -- or can it? It can only show 99% of the Adobe RGB color space on a good day. How will a particular hue appear on my monitor that is within the ProPhoto color space, like a deep blue or red, but is just outside the Adobe RGB space?  Thanks.
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1199



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2013, 01:55:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Color spaces are synthetic mathematical description color map models for a computer to follow in order to allow the user of imaging software tools to manipulate the video preview on a display and utilize all possible colors the device can reproduce in the smoothest manner without artifacts.

The primaries of ProPhotoRGB are not viewable by human eyes because they are written in the form of math maps to tell a computer how far to go in manipulating color managed previews. Thus Andrew's test tells you how far the computer can go with both the data and the video card driven display preview.

In my experience working in ProPhotoRGB has been beneficial even editing on sRGB-ish LCD displays because it allows me to push the saturation to fullest extent of my display's capability.

That's as far as I can understand and explain it and have it make sense and be practical for me and whoever else.
Logged
Jack Hogan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2013, 03:36:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rich,

Ideally the working color space should be as big as you need but no bigger.   So how big do you need it to be?  It depends on how your images are viewed.  99% of images are viewed on sRGB monitors/prints.  Very few commercial printing services print on anything larger than aRGB.  Some advanced home inkjet printers may be able to print colors outside of aRGB.

I have a very similar setup to yours and used to use MelissaD65 (a friendlier version of ProPhotoRGB) but cycled back to AdobeRGB in order to keep things tighter.  My home printer does not print anything wider than aRGB.  Convert to a smaller space at the beginning or at the end, but always convert one must :-)

Cheers,
Jack
Logged
afx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2013, 04:38:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone editing RAW files in AdobeRGB will throw away data....

You might want to read this:
http://www.afximages.com/articles.php?article=WorkingColorProfile

There is a good reason why all RAW converters use ProPhoto variants internally.

cheers
afx
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2013, 05:03:57 AM »
ReplyReply

99% of images are viewed on sRGB monitors/prints.  Very few commercial printing services print on anything larger than aRGB.

Those stat's come from where? Maybe true for display output. I've never seen any printer's output gamut that isn't larger in some area of color space than sRGB and sRGB is a theoretical color space based on a display. Got piles of output profiles for so called commercial printing services (RGB and CMYK) that don't look anything like sRGB and are larger in many areas of color space than sRGB.

Examples:



See all those colors falling outside the red (which is sRGB)?
Logged

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

Posts: 77


« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2013, 11:02:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Very few commercial printing services print on anything larger than aRGB.  Some advanced home inkjet printers may be able to print colors outside of aRGB.

I'm guessing by aRGB he meant Adobe RGB?
Logged
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2013, 12:57:25 PM »
ReplyReply

As you edit, when moving a slider (say Saturation or Vibrance), as soon as you stop seeing the image update (change), back off! You are affecting colors you can't see (Out of Gamut). That's your sign to move carefully.

Just thinking here...

If we work this way, aren't we actually editing in monitor color space?

I guess it's a good argument for wide gamut displays.
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
*Rich
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2013, 02:40:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ideally the working color space should be as big as you need but no bigger.   So how big do you need it to be?  It depends on how your images are viewed.  99% of images are viewed on sRGB monitors/prints.  Very few commercial printing services print on anything larger than aRGB.  Some advanced home inkjet printers may be able to print colors outside of aRGB.
I do fine-art photography and photo-art (photos & digital art combined). I am now producing gallery prints up to 17"X25" on an Epson 3880. Much of my work contains color gradients, shades of blue skies, and deep red sunsets running the entire length of the work. Thus my need to edit 16 bit in the ProPhotoRGB color space to produce accurate color and avoid banding or blocked-up color.

By using a calibrated wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW files in AdobeRGB, I was able to print very close to what I was seeing on my monitor (prior to an output adjustment for substrate and 3500K gallery lighting). That saved a lot of time, ink and paper.

But now with the need to edit in ProPhotoRGB, I was wondering how I can make more accurate edits relative to what the print looks like. How do other fine-art photographers do it? Is editing just guessing from experience, then going through a long drawn-out dance between soft-proofing, re-editing, and then printing lots of proofs? If so, can I streamline this process?  Thanks.

Logged
Oldfox
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2013, 02:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Those stat's come from where? Maybe true for display output. I've never seen any printer's output gamut that isn't larger in some area of color space than sRGB and sRGB is a theoretical color space based on a display. Got piles of output profiles for so called commercial printing services (RGB and CMYK) that don't look anything like sRGB and are larger in many areas of color space than sRGB.

See all those colors falling outside the red (which is sRGB)?
OP writes about Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB.
And you answer with sRGB. Why?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2013, 04:20:26 PM »
ReplyReply

OP writes about Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB.
And you answer with sRGB. Why?

The OP mentions Adobe RGB (1998) which is a color space. There's no aRGB (but there IS sRGB) which someone else mentioned. Typo?

Quote
I'm guessing by aRGB he meant Adobe RGB?
Could be. And even so, there are colors that fall outside that space provided by many output devices in some area's of color space. Do we need to see gamut plots of a modern ink jet next to Adobe RGB (1998)?
Logged

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

Posts: 244


« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2013, 04:21:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I do fine-art photography and photo-art (photos & digital art combined). I am now producing gallery prints up to 17"X25" on an Epson 3880.

Hi Rich,

An Epson 3880 inkjet is one of the home/studio printers that can indeed produce colors outside of AdobeRGB (aRGB).  So you have two choices: stick with aRGB, ensuring that what you see is faithfully reproduced on paper, but possibly giving up a few tonalities: or move to a larger color space, ensuring that those few extra wide tonalities make it to paper, but possibly resulting in tones on paper that you would not have expected from looking at the monitor.  The former will save you ink and paper.  The latter is potentially incrementally more 'colorful'.

By using a calibrated wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW files in AdobeRGB, I was able to print very close to what I was seeing on my monitor (prior to an output adjustment for substrate and 3500K gallery lighting). That saved a lot of time, ink and paper.   Much of my work contains color gradients, shades of blue skies, and deep red sunsets running the entire length of the work. Thus my need to edit 16 bit in the ProPhotoRGB color space to produce accurate color and avoid banding or blocked-up color.

Imho ProPhoto may indeed produce incrementally more colors, but it will do nothing to help you avoid banding - just the opposite (although you should have no such problems working with 16 bit files coming straight from Raw data).  The key is ensuring that your software, printer drivers and printer all work at the highest bit depth possible, ideally all at 16 bits (video drivers, video card, LUTs, monitor panel as well).

Quote
But now with the need to edit in ProPhotoRGB...

There is no such set need, it is just a personal choice with the compromises outlined above.  I would try ProPhoto/Melissa/BetaRGB and aRGB on a few of your reference prints.  If you cannot see a relevant improvement, I would stick with your tried and true workflow.

Cheers,
Jack
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 04:40:53 PM by Jack Hogan » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2013, 04:23:50 PM »
ReplyReply

WHY in raw workflows, you want to use ProPhoto RGB as a working space (IF like Adobe, it's internal color space is using similar sized primaries):

Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut


High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

The limitation is our display systems. You can choose to funnel your captured data into something small(er) to see everything but not print it, of not see all the colors and be careful editing and use those colors upon output. The choice is yours.
Logged

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

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2013, 04:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The OP mentions Adobe RGB (1998) which is a color space. There's no aRGB (but there IS sRGB) which someone else mentioned. Typo?
I doubt I'm the only one that regards aRGB as a common acronym for Adobe RGB (1998).

Come on, a degree of pragmatic understanding is more useful here than pure pedantry.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2013, 04:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I doubt I'm the only one that regards aRGB as a common acronym for Adobe RGB (1998).

As the Chinese proverb says: The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name.
Logged

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

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2013, 04:42:04 PM »
ReplyReply

As the Chinese proverb says: The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name.
So maybe you should type 'The original poster' rather than OP then ?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2013, 06:28:36 PM »
ReplyReply

So maybe you should type 'The original poster' rather than OP then ?

It's understandable how that would confuse you.
Logged

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

Posts: 5


« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2013, 07:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Everything you thought you wanted to know about color gamut
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorGamut.mov
Low Res (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q

Thanks Andrew. Very helpful, especially the last 30 seconds which addressed my issue.

But if I was to stop moving the adjustment slider when I could no longer see change in the image I'm editing, wouldn't that just be reducing the colors in my image to only the gamut of the monitor, AdobeRGB in my case? It sounds like hard proofing is the only way to test my prints to see if they are indeed capturing the color I remember seeing -- the dark blue gradations in the sky and the deep red-orange hues just after sunset or pre-sunrise.

Looks like I will be stocking up on Epson ink and paper soon. Although it seems like a saw some useful techniques on bracket proofing by John Paul Caponigro that may help. Thanks.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2013, 09:02:52 PM »
ReplyReply

But if I was to stop moving the adjustment slider when I could no longer see change in the image I'm editing, wouldn't that just be reducing the colors in my image to only the gamut of the monitor, AdobeRGB in my case?

There could still be colors outside gamut prior to you even moving the sliders. Probably are depending on the image and color space. The idea is that what you see changing as you move the slider should be within display gamut (you see it). But if you move too far, the colors are changing but it's not visible so here's where you want to be kind of careful.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad