Astounding!! I have been studying for about 2 months about color spaces for a company that develops systems based on high resolution monitors and I felt I was in a dark room with fog in it. The local "experts" were no help at all. You just turned the bright lights on and blew the fog away. Thank very much!!
Andrew-thanks so much for your time & effort to create this video, it's very enlightening. I've been silently following the linkedin discussion-keep in mind that some people 'won't allow themselves to be confused by facts' :) which is why I have dropped out of the discussion. I do think as an instructor it's important to keep it simple. Originally I joined the group hoping for open informed exchange & to learn something myself, but there are few like you. I will show this to all my students. thx
What a superb and simple explanation to a relatively complex issue. I was looking for info for a new photo monitor and this link was posted on the Adobe forum. I think I have learned a lot more than I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Zheren, there are output devices, modern ink jet printers for example, that exceed Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. But not ProPhoto RGB. So while using ProPhoto RGB can produce colors that fall outside display gamut, and you cannot see them, you can print them.
+ Aleksander To map the gamut of an image, you need something like ColorThink Pro from CHROMiX. As for rendering intent, all RGB working space profiles installed by Adobe only have the Relative Colorimetric table so that's what you end up with even if the product provides an option for Perceptual.
Without a doubt the best class I've ever had. Thanks for the content. But I think it's a bit risky to edit within the ProPhoto space if we are limited by the screen's color space (currently Adoobe RGB or DCI-P3). You would always be taking a shot in the dark. I don't know how this works in practice, but the risk of having very saturated images in the printout is great.
These color space are just contianers of a fixed size. An image may be contained within ProPhoto RGB but doesn’t exeed the gamut of the display so you lose nothing. But suppose you do have colors in pixels that exceed display gamut in such a large container. Indeed, you can’t see that when editing but do you clip colors outside display gamut you can print or, you work within the limitations of display gamut but deal with colors you can output? One trick: suppose you do have colors that fall outside display gamut. When editing, if you apply an edit and it stops appearing to appear, back off! You are altering colors but you can’t see this change and now you’re editing blindly. Do not go any farther.
The concept behind the color spaces is clear, and we do know printers go beyond Adobe RGB color reproduction. The fact is ProPhoto is way larger than Adobe RGB, and if you are dealing with a very saturated color palette captured with your camera (specially medium format cameras which can provide tons of color information), it is very unpredictable what you will get out of your printer, because those colors certainly will fall way out ARGB. Now, editing in ProPhoto but eye-balling it trying to restrict to Adobe RGB only makes sense if we are going to get some advantage in terms of color conversion to the printer, otherwise would be more suitable to work straight with ARGB. That is my understanding.
Simple matrix profiles of RGB working spaces when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces. Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, while working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models. To counter this, you need a really big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB again due to the simple size and to fit the round peg in the bigger square hole. RGB working spaces have shapes which are simple and predictable and differ greatly from output color spaces. Then there is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when you encode into such a color space or smaller gamut, you clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance. So the advantage of ProPhoto isn't only about retaining all those out-of-gamut colors it's also about maintaining the dissimilarities between them, so that you can map them into a printable color space as gradations rather than ending up as blobs. Here is a link to a TIFF that I built to show the effect of the 'blobs' and lack of definition of dark but saturated colors using sRGB (Red dots) versus the same image in ProPhoto RGB (Green dots). The image was synthetic, a Granger Rainbow which contains a huge number of possible colors. You can see that the gamut of ProPhoto is larger as expected. But notice the clumping of the colored red vs. green dots in darker tones which are lower down in the plot. Both RGB working space were converted to a final output printer color space (Epson 3880 Luster). www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif
Thank you for all the valuable information. Yes, so I was on the right track. I didn't know that this sort of "tone mapping" would work better going from ProPhoto space to the printer data conversion. Visually, we don't get blobs on the screen, so that's why most come up with inquiries I guess.
Andrew, what a great video. I think you've cleared my foggy notions of color management. I have a BenQ sw270c and I did 2 hardware calibratioins on it, one at 6500k and 100 candela for use other than print and one for print where I read 5800k and 80 candela might avoid dark prints. Both calibrations validated at 100% of srgb and 99% of adobe rgb. Like another commenter I shoot in raw and then tag the file with adobe rgb. After I'm satisfied with editing I duplicate the image and convert and embed to srgb and save to disk for screen uses. I only print with my canon pro100 which canon told me does adobe rgb from time to time. Should I save the edied original file as a tiff with the adobe rgb tag if I decide to print, reedit in the lower white point calibration or just start afresh in that calibration with the raw file and edit all over again?
Save high bit, wide gamut, spin off smaller files, sRGB for the web. Displays that allow multiple calibrations are great so you can use one target for print, the other for other use(s).
Thank you for this excellent information on color gamuts for photography! Question: Around minute 7 you move from 2 dimension to 3 dimension in color space. Please define these dimensions, and in particular, what is the 3rd dimension showing us? Thank you. Art
Art Altman Thanks for the kind words Art. Color spaces are three dimensional, they have three axis (components) and it's the best way to view the 'full story' so to speak. But difficult to show without a video as the space spin's as shown. So depending on how one plots gamuts, you have for example, a 3D plot in Lab color space where two dimensions define the aStar and bStar axis (think of this a Red/Green or Yellow/Blue) while the 3rd axis is Lstar (white to black). A 2D plot would only show you the aStar/bStar plot of that color space.
Great video, even for a beginner like me. I have to rewatch it for sure. So what do I do if I find out of gamut (RGB) colors in my image in lightroom? Should I convert file/colorspace with perceptual setting? I guess nobody want banding in landscapes, so relative is out of the question, eh? The proofing section, can it be used for spotting out of gamut web-colors too? Thanks
Thanks for the great content! I only have one question. Why does color space difference does not mean difference in amount of colors? If we can perceive a more saturated blue, isnt it a different color (as in a different wavelength)? If that's not the case, what would be the perceivable difference in the visible color spectrum between a 255 blue in ProPhoto and sRGB?
Amount of color is based on encoding. Gamut is range of color. 255 blue (0 red, 0 green) is an attribute of encoding numbers. Using green and the difference in say sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), both have the same number of color values* if both are encoded in 8-bits per color. But the G255 in Adobe RGB (1998) is more saturated than the same number (G255) in sRGB. This PDF may help: digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf I have to make a video from it someday. But this should give you the idea of the differences in color and color numbers (Device Values), the later based on the encoding of numbers.
@@DigitaldogNet Thank you for the answer! The PDF was very enlightening, but I would love to see a video explanation with your format about the subject.
Great tutorial. My question is if you are not able to see the entire gamut of a photo on display devices, what is the point to work in colour space like prophoto? I mean in the end you have to convert them to srgb anyway right?
No, in the end, you don't have to convert to sRGB. I consider sRGB an output color space, one specifically ideal for output to the web and mobile devices. NOT output to any print as it's suboptimal due to the small color gamut.
great! thank you. I would add some info on what does photo software display whenever you edit your picture out of the monitor gamut. does it really just clips the colors to the furthest value the monitor can display or does it do something more? (assuming it's properly calibrated, obviously) as a take out for me, no need to go for wide-gamut monitors (unless you are a pro) as you'll have colors out of AdobeRBG gamut regardless, and you'll have to learn to work with that.
Thank you for the tutorial! Does this mean that if I have a monitor with 100 srgb but only 70 adobe rgb, I could just work in srgb gamut for both web and print since I cannot see outside of srgb from my minitor anyway? Or should I still edit in Pro photo rbg for the most accurate colours then convert to srgb or another gamut depending on the output usage?
So no printer can print all of sRGB (or Adobe RGB (1998)) so that's one thing. The display's gamut is the limiting factor of what you can SEE but not necessarily print. So there may be colors you can print but can't see on any display; sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. I would still edit in ProPhoto RGB for print, even if I can't see everything. One trick is, when doing some edits that might affect very saturated colors that fall outside display gamut is this: If you are editing and don't see a change as you apply the edit, back off. You could actually be editing colors outside the display gamut. Bottom line is, when it comes to printing, the gamut limitation is mostly in the display, lesser so with a wide gamut display.
@@DigitaldogNet wow, thank you so much for the reply, it makes total sense to me now. Another quick question, as I am using a laptop with a display of around 70adobe rgb, and wanting to upgrade to something close to 100 adobe rgb, but the price for a 4k panel is insane on these laptops. I am doing mostly web base photography, now in your experience, how much of a difference is there? As I understood in your video the most discrepany is happening on the green saturation. which doesn't really seem that big of deal for my type of work. Most reviewers on YT comment that a 70 adobe rgb is good enough for some creative work. Would you agree? Thanks again for your input.
@@liu-river If you want to work with and see colors outside sRGB but that fall within Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut, you'd want a wider gamut display than sRGB. As far as I am concerned, wider gamut is more important that higher resolution in a display. But that's me.
>>I often view images in Explorer or IrfanView. Because of this alone, I've switched back to sRGB. Am I missing something? Non ICC aware (color management app's) will require sRGB but even then, are not previewing correctly. So no, you can't have non ICC aware applications work properly using any color space but sRGB would be the least ugly.
Hello Andrew, thank you so much for the video. I shoot raw and I use Lightroom for most of my editing. As you mentioned in your video, if I use a macbook screen, which covers about 70% of Adobe RGB and 100% SRGB, I can only see the colors that the display can show. In that case, unless I have an intention to print professionally, does it make sense to have a display which can cover 100% of the Adobe RGB. A monitor with 100% SRGB coverage should be enough for web publishing purposes. Technically, when I am done with editing in Lightroom and convert it to SRGB, I see no difference in colors as the monitor only shows SRGB colors. Does that make sense? Should I pay extra for a full Adobe RGB display? Thank you again.
The display is the weak link here in terms of color gamut and always will be. A wide gamut display can help and the better units can be switched to sRGB color gamut on the fly: best of both worlds. Here will always be colors in even sRGB that fall outside the color gamut of any printer and colors printers can produce even Adobe RGB (1998) cannot contain.
I understand. So, an external monitor with 100% Adobe RGB coverage or a similar laptop screen would help the process. It seems like the optimal process is take pictures in Adobe RGB, edit them in a 100% Adobe RGB coverage monitor, export them depending on needs, to sRGB for web or social media purposes, keep them in RAW for printing purposes. Is that a better method than editing directly with a 100% sRGB coverage monitor only in terms of photo quality and having the least amount of damage while editing?
A wider gamut display would be helpful but it's still the weak link in terms of color gamut considering there are capture and output devices that exceed the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) begging the question: funnel everything into a smaller color gamut so you can see everything but clip colors that you potentially captured and can print OR work with a wider gamut color space where some colors can't be seen on screen but can be output to a print. I'd pick the 2nd option unless 100% of your work will only be seen on screen.
i was always told to use srgb....so i set my camera, photoshop & lightroom to it...so what you are saying is that rgb is what i need to reset everything to.......im going to be printing so ....tell me what i need to do
I shoot Nikon D750 RAW imported into Lightroom Classic 10.1. using the default Prophoto RGB workspace but my 27" 4k monitor is 99% sRGB output. I edit the image and then export it to the professional printer in AdobeRGB 8-bit. (OCE Lightjet + FujiFlex paper) Is my monitor remapping the out-of-gamut colors down to my smaller sRGB display space so I don't see clipping? When I send to the printer, are some colors going to look more saturated in the green and blue channels than what my monitor is showing me?
@@DigitaldogNet so, on a saturated gradient, I should see clipping as banding at the upper end. But, my printer's output to FujiFlex will show a gradient within what I see as a solid clipped color area... yeah? If I upgrade to a full AdobeRGB monitor, I would also see that gradient.
@@sh91899 If you took the image, in a wider gamut than your display, and converted it using the display profile (relative colorimetric), you'd get the same results as viewing that image in a wider gamut but not converting it. The image has (presumably) a wider color gamut than the display. So with a gradient that does have colors that are out of display gamut, those colors can't be seen. They are clipped to the boundaries of the color gamut the display can show you. But the wider gamut exists and can be used of course, on a device that is wider gamut than the display. Yes, if you had data outside sRGB color gamut, but within Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut AND you had a wider gamut display, you'd see those existing colors.
Hello Andrew, I am sending a Target for an icc Color File. I have a (New on market) Epson 8000 8-ink-set. I use Adobe Cloud / RJb / New PC. Just verifying if anything has changed from instructions on your Web-Site. Also, is it possible $ to have a phone instruction to make sure the Target is perfected. Dan
Sorry I disliked not because of your great job, but because of the audio limited to left... Even a mono sound would be great, but I cant listen to your video with my headphone my right ear is ringing...
Astounding!! I have been studying for about 2 months about color spaces for a company that develops systems based on high resolution monitors and I felt I was in a dark room with fog in it. The local "experts" were no help at all. You just turned the bright lights on and blew the fog away. Thank very much!!
This video is really old now but still completely relevant. I really think this was great!
Andrew-thanks so much for your time & effort to create this video, it's very enlightening. I've been silently following the linkedin discussion-keep in mind that some people 'won't allow themselves to be confused by facts' :) which is why I have dropped out of the discussion. I do think as an instructor it's important to keep it simple. Originally I joined the group hoping for open informed exchange & to learn something myself, but there are few like you. I will show this to all my students. thx
What a superb and simple explanation to a relatively complex issue. I was looking for info for a new photo monitor and this link was posted on the Adobe forum. I think I have learned a lot more than I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Excellent tutorial, thanks. I now have a much better understanding of the color differences I see on my monitor and my printouts.
Zheren, there are output devices, modern ink jet printers for example, that exceed Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut. But not ProPhoto RGB. So while using ProPhoto RGB can produce colors that fall outside display gamut, and you cannot see them, you can print them.
Thank you for taking the time for this great explanation of gamut.
+ Aleksander To map the gamut of an image, you need something like ColorThink Pro from CHROMiX. As for rendering intent, all RGB working space profiles installed by Adobe only have the Relative Colorimetric table so that's what you end up with even if the product provides an option for Perceptual.
Awesome explanation of color gamut! Thank you!
Great video!!! Very detailed. Good explanations and information. Thank you.
Great instructional video! Thanks for sharing.....now if your voice was in the both the right and left audio channels....it would be twice as good!
Without a doubt the best class I've ever had. Thanks for the content. But I think it's a bit risky to edit within the ProPhoto space if we are limited by the screen's color space (currently Adoobe RGB or DCI-P3). You would always be taking a shot in the dark. I don't know how this works in practice, but the risk of having very saturated images in the printout is great.
These color space are just contianers of a fixed size. An image may be contained within ProPhoto RGB but doesn’t exeed the gamut of the display so you lose nothing. But suppose you do have colors in pixels that exceed display gamut in such a large container. Indeed, you can’t see that when editing but do you clip colors outside display gamut you can print or, you work within the limitations of display gamut but deal with colors you can output? One trick: suppose you do have colors that fall outside display gamut. When editing, if you apply an edit and it stops appearing to appear, back off! You are altering colors but you can’t see this change and now you’re editing blindly. Do not go any farther.
The concept behind the color spaces is clear, and we do know printers go beyond Adobe RGB color reproduction. The fact is ProPhoto is way larger than Adobe RGB, and if you are dealing with a very saturated color palette captured with your camera (specially medium format cameras which can provide tons of color information), it is very unpredictable what you will get out of your printer, because those colors certainly will fall way out ARGB. Now, editing in ProPhoto but eye-balling it trying to restrict to Adobe RGB only makes sense if we are going to get some advantage in terms of color conversion to the printer, otherwise would be more suitable to work straight with ARGB. That is my understanding.
Simple matrix profiles of RGB working spaces when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces. Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, while working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models. To counter this, you need a really big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB again due to the simple size and to fit the round peg in the bigger square hole. RGB working spaces have shapes which are simple and predictable and differ greatly from output color spaces. Then there is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when you encode into such a color space or smaller gamut, you clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance. So the advantage of ProPhoto isn't only about retaining all those out-of-gamut colors it's also about maintaining the dissimilarities between them, so that you can map them into a printable color space as gradations rather than ending up as blobs.
Here is a link to a TIFF that I built to show the effect of the 'blobs' and lack of definition of dark but saturated colors using sRGB (Red dots) versus the same image in ProPhoto RGB (Green dots). The image was synthetic, a Granger Rainbow which contains a huge number of possible colors. You can see that the gamut of ProPhoto is larger as expected. But notice the clumping of the colored red vs. green dots in darker tones which are lower down in the plot. Both RGB working space were converted to a final output printer color space (Epson 3880 Luster).
www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif
Thank you for all the valuable information. Yes, so I was on the right track. I didn't know that this sort of "tone mapping" would work better going from ProPhoto space to the printer data conversion. Visually, we don't get blobs on the screen, so that's why most come up with inquiries I guess.
Andrew, what a great video. I think you've cleared my foggy notions of color management. I have a BenQ sw270c and I did 2 hardware calibratioins on it, one at 6500k and 100 candela for use other than print and one for print where I read 5800k and 80 candela might avoid dark prints. Both calibrations validated at 100% of srgb and 99% of adobe rgb. Like another commenter I shoot in raw and then tag the file with adobe rgb. After I'm satisfied with editing I duplicate the image and convert and embed to srgb and save to disk for screen uses. I only print with my canon pro100 which canon told me does adobe rgb from time to time. Should I save the edied original file as a tiff with the adobe rgb tag if I decide to print, reedit in the lower white point calibration or just start afresh in that calibration with the raw file and edit all over again?
Save high bit, wide gamut, spin off smaller files, sRGB for the web. Displays that allow multiple calibrations are great so you can use one target for print, the other for other use(s).
Great and exhaustive, thank you.
Great work, Thank you.
Excellent, thankyou.
Thank you for this excellent information on color gamuts for photography!
Question: Around minute 7 you move from 2 dimension to 3 dimension in color space. Please define these dimensions, and in particular, what is the 3rd dimension showing us?
Thank you.
Art
Art Altman Thanks for the kind words Art.
Color spaces are three dimensional, they have three axis (components) and it's the best way to view the 'full story' so to speak. But difficult to show without a video as the space spin's as shown. So depending on how one plots gamuts, you have for example, a 3D plot in Lab color space where two dimensions define the aStar and bStar axis (think of this a Red/Green or Yellow/Blue) while the 3rd axis is Lstar (white to black). A 2D plot would only show you the aStar/bStar plot of that color space.
Great video, even for a beginner like me. I have to rewatch it for sure. So what do I do if I find out of gamut (RGB) colors in my image in lightroom? Should I convert file/colorspace with perceptual setting? I guess nobody want banding in landscapes, so relative is out of the question, eh? The proofing section, can it be used for spotting out of gamut web-colors too? Thanks
Thank you.
Thanks for the great content! I only have one question. Why does color space difference does not mean difference in amount of colors? If we can perceive a more saturated blue, isnt it a different color (as in a different wavelength)? If that's not the case, what would be the perceivable difference in the visible color spectrum between a 255 blue in ProPhoto and sRGB?
Amount of color is based on encoding. Gamut is range of color. 255 blue (0 red, 0 green) is an attribute of encoding numbers. Using green and the difference in say sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), both have the same number of color values* if both are encoded in 8-bits per color. But the G255 in Adobe RGB (1998) is more saturated than the same number (G255) in sRGB. This PDF may help: digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf
I have to make a video from it someday. But this should give you the idea of the differences in color and color numbers (Device Values), the later based on the encoding of numbers.
@@DigitaldogNet Thank you for the answer! The PDF was very enlightening, but I would love to see a video explanation with your format about the subject.
Great tutorial. My question is if you are not able to see the entire gamut of a photo on display devices, what is the point to work in colour space like prophoto? I mean in the end you have to convert them to srgb anyway right?
No, in the end, you don't have to convert to sRGB. I consider sRGB an output color space, one specifically ideal for output to the web and mobile devices. NOT output to any print as it's suboptimal due to the small color gamut.
great! thank you.
I would add some info on what does photo software display whenever you edit your picture out of the monitor gamut. does it really just clips the colors to the furthest value the monitor can display or does it do something more? (assuming it's properly calibrated, obviously)
as a take out for me, no need to go for wide-gamut monitors (unless you are a pro) as you'll have colors out of AdobeRBG gamut regardless, and you'll have to learn to work with that.
Yes, colors are clipped to the boundary of the display's gamut.
Thank you for the tutorial! Does this mean that if I have a monitor with 100 srgb but only 70 adobe rgb, I could just work in srgb gamut for both web and print since I cannot see outside of srgb from my minitor anyway? Or should I still edit in Pro photo rbg for the most accurate colours then convert to srgb or another gamut depending on the output usage?
So no printer can print all of sRGB (or Adobe RGB (1998)) so that's one thing. The display's gamut is the limiting factor of what you can SEE but not necessarily print. So there may be colors you can print but can't see on any display; sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. I would still edit in ProPhoto RGB for print, even if I can't see everything. One trick is, when doing some edits that might affect very saturated colors that fall outside display gamut is this: If you are editing and don't see a change as you apply the edit, back off. You could actually be editing colors outside the display gamut. Bottom line is, when it comes to printing, the gamut limitation is mostly in the display, lesser so with a wide gamut display.
@@DigitaldogNet wow, thank you so much for the reply, it makes total sense to me now. Another quick question, as I am using a laptop with a display of around 70adobe rgb, and wanting to upgrade to something close to 100 adobe rgb, but the price for a 4k panel is insane on these laptops. I am doing mostly web base photography, now in your experience, how much of a difference is there? As I understood in your video the most discrepany is happening on the green saturation. which doesn't really seem that big of deal for my type of work. Most reviewers on YT comment that a 70 adobe rgb is good enough for some creative work. Would you agree? Thanks again for your input.
@@liu-river If you want to work with and see colors outside sRGB but that fall within Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut, you'd want a wider gamut display than sRGB.
As far as I am concerned, wider gamut is more important that higher resolution in a display. But that's me.
>>I often view images in Explorer or IrfanView. Because of this alone, I've switched back to sRGB. Am I missing something?
Non ICC aware (color management app's) will require sRGB but even then, are not previewing correctly. So no, you can't have non ICC aware applications work properly using any color space but sRGB would be the least ugly.
Hello Andrew, thank you so much for the video. I shoot raw and I use Lightroom for most of my editing. As you mentioned in your video, if I use a macbook screen, which covers about 70% of Adobe RGB and 100% SRGB, I can only see the colors that the display can show. In that case, unless I have an intention to print professionally, does it make sense to have a display which can cover 100% of the Adobe RGB. A monitor with 100% SRGB coverage should be enough for web publishing purposes. Technically, when I am done with editing in Lightroom and convert it to SRGB, I see no difference in colors as the monitor only shows SRGB colors. Does that make sense? Should I pay extra for a full Adobe RGB display? Thank you again.
The display is the weak link here in terms of color gamut and always will be. A wide gamut display can help and the better units can be switched to sRGB color gamut on the fly: best of both worlds. Here will always be colors in even sRGB that fall outside the color gamut of any printer and colors printers can produce even Adobe RGB (1998) cannot contain.
I understand. So, an external monitor with 100% Adobe RGB coverage or a similar laptop screen would help the process. It seems like the optimal process is take pictures in Adobe RGB, edit them in a 100% Adobe RGB coverage monitor, export them depending on needs, to sRGB for web or social media purposes, keep them in RAW for printing purposes. Is that a better method than editing directly with a 100% sRGB coverage monitor only in terms of photo quality and having the least amount of damage while editing?
A wider gamut display would be helpful but it's still the weak link in terms of color gamut considering there are capture and output devices that exceed the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) begging the question: funnel everything into a smaller color gamut so you can see everything but clip colors that you potentially captured and can print OR work with a wider gamut color space where some colors can't be seen on screen but can be output to a print. I'd pick the 2nd option unless 100% of your work will only be seen on screen.
Thanks so much for guidance, it narrows down my search a lot. Much appreciated.
i was always told to use srgb....so i set my camera, photoshop & lightroom to it...so what you are saying is that rgb is what i need to reset everything to.......im going to be printing so ....tell me what i need to do
Hi Andrew. i was wondering if i can create color profiles or icc profiles in colorthink for windows and macos?
CTP doesn’t create ICC profiles.
I shoot Nikon D750 RAW imported into Lightroom Classic 10.1. using the default Prophoto RGB workspace but my 27" 4k monitor is 99% sRGB output. I edit the image and then export it to the professional printer in AdobeRGB 8-bit. (OCE Lightjet + FujiFlex paper)
Is my monitor remapping the out-of-gamut colors down to my smaller sRGB display space so I don't see clipping? When I send to the printer, are some colors going to look more saturated in the green and blue channels than what my monitor is showing me?
It's clipping all out of gamut colors in the image data to the gamut of the display.
@@DigitaldogNet so, on a saturated gradient, I should see clipping as banding at the upper end. But, my printer's output to FujiFlex will show a gradient within what I see as a solid clipped color area... yeah? If I upgrade to a full AdobeRGB monitor, I would also see that gradient.
@@sh91899 If you took the image, in a wider gamut than your display, and converted it using the display profile (relative colorimetric), you'd get the same results as viewing that image in a wider gamut but not converting it. The image has (presumably) a wider color gamut than the display. So with a gradient that does have colors that are out of display gamut, those colors can't be seen. They are clipped to the boundaries of the color gamut the display can show you. But the wider gamut exists and can be used of course, on a device that is wider gamut than the display. Yes, if you had data outside sRGB color gamut, but within Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut AND you had a wider gamut display, you'd see those existing colors.
Hello Andrew, I am sending a Target for an icc Color File. I have a (New on market) Epson 8000 8-ink-set. I use Adobe Cloud / RJb / New PC. Just verifying if anything has changed from instructions on your Web-Site. Also, is it possible $ to have a phone instruction to make sure the Target is perfected.
Dan
Sure!
Oh, and Nothing has changed.
Sorry I disliked not because of your great job, but because of the audio limited to left... Even a mono sound would be great, but I cant listen to your video with my headphone my right ear is ringing...
gayyy