POINTS TO ADD: 1) For ProPhoto colour space, it is recommended to use as archival purpose. Because the colour space is so huge, it can be adopted for future use. 2) In general, Adobe RGB colour space is larger than printer colour space with the exception of cyan colour. The cyan colour is more saturated in printer colour space than Adobe RGB colour space. 3) When photos are sent to photo labs, the printer software will adjust the tone curve to produce more pleasing colours for the prints.
1) I agree, there is no other reason to use it, well, to edit as-well. 2) Epson K3 as Jeff Schewe said falls outside AdobeRGB, and that was released to the market some decade(s?) ago. I believe quite a lot of Epsons have the range and means to go beyond the AdobeRGB gamut, but if you are using those kinds of printers, then you are probably also using a RIP and not some Photoshop dialogue box :-) And yo will have a better control over the color transform from there. I believe Yellow, Red and maybe even Cyan falls outside on Epsons, but don't hold this against me, I just order the prints these days. 3) Most color LABs I have used still demands sRGB, this is not because of their printers gamuts, mediums or workflow. They got things sorted out. The main issue is the person who is going to "apply" and not "convert" colorspace to their TIFFs, so that the ProPhotoRGB document they said they converted to sRGB - is really a ProPhotoRGB with an applied sRGB metadata. The customers is "always right", so in most cases those LABs are going to pay up or do the reprint for free which is a huge waste of money. So it is really because of the Karens and Kevins they avoid allowing anything else than sRGB ;-) My local print LAB has newest Canons and Epsons, they are more than capable of printing beyond AdobeRGB on the right medium, but they still do sRGB only 😀
This is so interesting!! I have been wondering for months why German printing company whitewall say that their printers use the sRGB colour space and nothing else. Can't possibly be true! I am curious to know: are you saying that the "convert to profile" command in Photoshop does not work? Lately, I have taken to converting my images from ProPhoto to sRGB for soft proofing, figuring that if whitewall print within sRGB I should soft proof for that colour space in order to have an accurate preview of what my prints. But from what you say, it would be better to send them ProPhoto/AdobeRGB .tif files and let them do what they please with them... the result will likely be good, as I imagine that they have the best algorithms but still, this means that the final touch is completely outside of my control, which is a bit disturbing after I spend so many hours/ months/ years editing an image to my liking.
Adobe RGB lacks real monitor colors, P3 lacks real printable colors. ProPhoto holds both but vastly exceeds what we need and that causes problems as you note. A much better option would be Rec2020. It covers even laser projectors and nearly all of Pointer’s gamut, yet doesn’t have fake colors (ones humans cannot see). It would be amazing if Rec2020 came with Photoshop, or shipped by default with Windows/MacOS. LR’s native primaries are Rec2020 when working in HDR mode.
Darktable (as for v. 4.8.1 at least) uses rec.2020 as its default working profile and you can set it as output profile as well. This is a RAW editor, however, so not exactly what you seeking. Though I think both Gimp and Krita allow for choice of a custom colour profile and they don't fall far behind Photoshop in their capabilities. And getting back to RAW editors, I think free/libre software such as Darktable or RawTherapee already surpassed Lightroom. If not sponsored or constrained by other means, I don't find a reason to stick with Adobe products anymore. Though I'm not a professional photographer, so I may be missing something.
I run the prepress department in a print company in Germany. We use eciRGB v2 instead of Adobe RGB. Adobe RGB has a white point of D65 while eciRGB v2 is using D50. That‘s closer to the actual paper white in use.
I edit in ProPhoto because when editing you move the histogram about and colours outside of the smaller colour spaces can move into a space if you limit the colour range what can fill the space if you move colours inward? after editing I will then convert to the correct profile for its output needs. I hope I explained myself.
Another reason why I don’t use Lightroom!….lol (I use Bridge with Camera Raw) & set my colour space to Adobe rgb. I’ve known for a long time that Pro photos colour space is beyond what we can see & print. Some say they are future proofing their images. But now know that if in pro photo that there is a conversion back to what we see, i’ll stick to Adobe rgb. With a correctly calibrated monitor, I do all my own printing & my prints are exactly what I see on my screen as in tones & colours. So if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!…..lol Great insight Glyn, thanks for clearing this up for everyone else! Lol 🙏👌🤗👍
I saw a similar conversation with this gent right before I purchased a new monitor and decided against buying a printer - he saved me a lot. He also talked about how the type of computer-monitor connection USB-C, USB-A??? or HDMI connection can also impact what our monitors see/interpret the color or the image.
I am a retired Color Scientist that worked for Creo for many years. It is so refreshing to hear someone who knows what they are talking about in Color Science. I shoot in RAW. I use Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW to convert to Adobe RGB in Photoshop and I print on an Epson Stylus Pro 4900. Thank You for doing this video. I wish more professional printers would supply print profiles for Photographers. It is possible to turn color control into science and not art. However, commercial printing has been done as a high art for many years. I have great respect for highly skilled pressman.
4:36 Interestingly he says we have little or no impact on how the color transform happens, but we do have when setting Perceptual, Relative or Absolute as target. Also interestingly, he assumes that you have to see or have to make use of the theoretical colors in ProPhotoRGB to really have an advantage of using it, but he don't consider the "latitude" part of having more to pull in. Why even shooting RAW when we could have shot in camera to AdobeRGB and printed on our AdobeRGB printer, right? No, we make use of all the invisible data in the RAW file even if we don't know this. Sometimes it is better to have a RAW conversion taking place in that bigger colorspace to make use of better tools in RAW backend that we users can't naturally see, because some filters have more to work with. That's why also using ProPhotoRGB is good when editing in Photoshop, so the filters and tools have more latitude to work with. This is an old topic and this horse have been flogged a long time ago - way too much... I like to make people think about audio when also think about this case. Would you even listen to music in 44.1kHz when your ears only hear 22kHz? Yes, of course, we all do it daily. Why would you listen to in anything higher than 16bit audio when 80% of stereos our there can't take advantage of higer bitrate like 24 or 32float? Why do we continuously stream/listen to audio shot in 48kHz, 96kHz and maybe even higher? That's because of the DAC filters in your audio components (correlate this to a RAW converter in photography, or tools in Photoshop). If you have a 22kHz track - the noise filter in DAC would be steep and you will get distortion in audio in the spectrum you can hear. Why 44.1kHz and 96kHz audio? The filter is not that steep, the distortion is less, there is less need of adding dither/noise (as well as in photography)... So you can see where I'm going with this... I'm happy that he is satisfied with his workflow, and it is probably enough for his use case, but there are also advantages of using higher settings even if the monitors and you can't see all of the data, and this should not be disregarded in some workflows. I have one counterpoint why using bigger colorspace ProPhotoRGB is bad, and you can thank Dan Margulis over at Ledet and Modern Color Theory for this point as I didn't see this earlier.. You do really NEED to use 16bit if you are using high DR/colorful images in AdobeRGB and ProphotoRGB/LAB, and this is because of how big those colorspaces are. When you convert down from ProPhotoRGB 8bit with lots of colors - to sRGB 8bit, then you will most likely run in to rounding errors and such that will appear as artifacts in the image, most of the times in smooth gradients as stepping, and in hard color shift edges as almost dead pixel color errors. So really, if you do any edits in AdobeRGB and higher, use 16bit if in doubt / image has a lot of colors and gradations. Otherwise, I wouldn't consider using anything less than AdobeRGB 16 bit if I had to make serious edits. Btw, I believe colorspace in Adobe Lightroom is MelissaRGB which is relative the same as ProPhotoRGB, but I think the gamma is default 2.2 and not 1.8 which ProPhotoRGB use :)
4:07 I had to add worryingly since he is an ICC guy. I do wonder how much he is in to how the LUT and conversion spaces work as you have one working colorspace (usually AdobeRGB in Photoshop), you have storage colorspace of image file (whatever Lightroom export to Photoshop), then you have your monitor/conversion space where system put the color data in to and calculate what to show monitor. You can set how Photoshop choose to render out of gamut colors by using Relative, Perceptual, Absolute and Saturation - when system opens an ProPhotoRGB file and your monitor profile is sRGB or AdobeRGB at the best. The tweaks you do to the "theoretical colors" is shown on screen using color transformation and calibration - toward what out of bounds rules you set. Just fill a layer with (LAB) 10, 80, -80, and I'll bet your monitor is able to display it despite it is a highly out gamut color. That's because of the color transform. Look up Jeff Schewe and sRGB vs ProPhotoRGB in printing, you see how AdobeRGB even falls outside an Epson printer with K3 ink, and this was loooong time ago.
Time to use P3 color space for everything delivered to clients and for printing, since this is what mobile phones, TV-sets and newer PC-monitors works with (close enough to Adobe RGB for everything), and this is what is used for video too. What do you guys think?
I worked in the Photo Lab at the National Geographic Society for 40 years and when Digital color output and editing came on the scene we used Adobe RGB 1998 and it really worked well for our purposes. I sttill use Adobe RGB. To me using a space like Pro Photo RGB which can't be reproduced and doesn't represent the real world production process isn't necessary.
Superb discussion, there is also the other variable to take into account too. In that papers all have different ability to present colour spaces too, for example a matte paper has a smaller theoretical colour space than a baryta or a full gloss. Having a well managed work flow allows you to get the best from your images, which as you’ve found with your exhibition prints is a real joy. He is essentially totally right in than Pro Photo is way bigger than we can see, monitors can handle, printers can print and papers can reproduce.
Hi Glyn...what a great video ..one of the best I have ever seen......Having been a pro photographer for over 50yrs and started in Black & White...the comments go on....and the guy is right ProPhoto has so big a space nothing can touch it....but I am so upset that photographers today and others....all like to saturate colour combinations to make what they take even better or as we have all done.....put something in that is not really there.....Thank you
The printing dilemma is very easy: 1- If the lab can't provide their own profile from their printer for color proofing, export and send in sRGB to be super safe 2- If the lab provide with their profiles (I was already receiving them in 2007, so it's not new stuff, it's old procedure), color proof with those profiles Other then that, I postproduce with the entire workflow in ProPhoto, and the profile conversion for printing is the very last thing to do; I use ProPhoto all the way because you work with the biggest amount of color gradations, EVEN IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM, the file remains more intact after heavy retouch. So there's no excuse to not work in ProPhoto, at least if you work on a pro monitor that can display close to full AdobeRGB spectrum (mine covers 98% of AdobeRGB) and that's fully calibrated with a DeltaE under 0.5 (mine is 0.2/0.3), with PVA or IPS panels. Of course if you work on TN panels with sRGB capabilities and you don0t even calibrate it, then your colours are a lottery, and you can work with the profile you want, nothing will change, there's no way to have control and integrity.
Interesting point you make about working in ProPhoto RGB becuase ... "you work with the biggest amount of color gradations, EVEN IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM". As there is currently no devices that can show ProPhoto RGB, and playing Devil's Advocate here, how do you know and how can you tell that the 'the file remains more intact after heavy retouch' when having worked in ProPhoto RGB ... that you also cannot see the full spectrum of? Surely with no devices being able to display ProPhoto RGB, then this can only (at the current time) be an assumption.
@@glyndewis I agree with, it's just a personal assumption; it's my way of doing things, and of course anyone can compare its own needs and choices. Certainly that's my response on the dilemma, can't be THE response for sure. My mindset would be equal, to do an example, to "I'll buy the car - given what I can afford - with the best traction, stability and corner grip on the market; I'm not a pro pilot and I drive on open roads, so I won't be able to feel and enjoy all that traction and grip, but I do assume that while driving normally, this car will still be safer and grippier then another car driven in the very same relaxed way". So I can't really know were the limit is, I don't feel it, dunno if in an emergency I'll be able to use this better road grip to save my life, but still, I assume that buying the grippier car I can pay for will give me a performance which is at least not inferior to any other solution. It's like "if there's a point of failure, I want to be me, not my gear; so I'll use the wider gamut profile I can get, and then if the file will end up being destroyed by the workflow, that will be entirely my fault, and not a limit of me using a lower standard in profile gamut". Hope that makes sense! 🙂
Great video! Dan Marguiles used to do a demo on why not to use Pro Photo when he was at Photoshop World. My students used to be confused about why Adobe decided to standardize on Pro Photo, when none of our printers could reproduce that space. I get it, understand why Adobe adopted it, but love this video for its clear headed explanation. I should add that there are similarities between mastering engineers use of high bit rate in audio, even if the final files end up being saved in a lower bitrate. Similarly, the vast majority of audio files have a smaller audio footprint, so some ask why digitize in a larger space? The reason most give are either a) Lower noise floor for post-production work, b) Assumption of preserving every bit of data, and c) It somehow sounds better, although this is much in debate. So, Adobe's use of a larger color space can be viewed as forward thinking, being setup for future advancements, sensors with a larger color space, etc. Still doesn't make the transition to print any less confusing! Keep up the great videos!
Thanks for this really concise and clear video. I recently did my first photo book and it led me to frazzle my brain over colour space, print lab ICC profiles, soft proofing, etc. having previously had default LR/PS settings and exporting high quality sRGB. 👍
Completely agree. Annoying Lr doesn’t let you use AdobeRGB as your working space. Started experiencing artifacts with in-gamut gradients when I went over to ProPhoto with Lr. (My background: been working with colour spaces since 1987 including working on the JPEG algorithm in 1988).
Thanks for addressing this really important and yet amazingly complicated topic! If I understand correctly, your workflow consists is keeping the RAW file in LR, unedited, in ProPhoto for archival purposes, and editing it in PS after having converted it to Adobe RGB? Do you send the .tif to the lab in Adobe RGB or sRGB? Sorry if this has been addressed in the comments, I read as many as i could but couldn't go through them all.
Interesting but at the same time somewhat confusing. I've read somewhere else that wide-gamut and linear working profiles are used not for the direct visible results but to give our software a better environment for all the calculations resulting in smoother gradients and so on when we export our work to smaller RGB space as a final product. However, the same people who wrote this were discouraging the use of ProPhoto RGB (as a working profile) in favour of such colour spaces as rec.2020 or ACEScg - they've not explained why, though.
There is a long standing argument whether to use ProPhoto RGB or not. This is personal choice and you’re NOT wrong ‘to’ use it or ‘not’ to use it. Although so much of ProPhoto RGB cannot been seen by the human eye, replicated in displays or printed, it is considered good for archival and future proofing. Your workspace depends on your ‘content’ … if you’re retouching photographs then ProPhoto RGB / Adobe RGB is the way to go.
@@glyndewis As far as I understood this, the choice of a working profile can possibly have quite a significant outcome for your pictures - at least if you perform any colour mixing or colour grading operations, or apply blending modes in such software as Krita or Gimp (Photoshop is hardcoded to ProPhoto RGB primaries anyway). Don't take me wrong - I don't want to pretend I'm smarter than I actually am. But while I can understand why linear gamma profiles in conjunction with high bit depth floating can be beneficial for some operations, I just don't know the reasons behind some people's objections against ProPhoto RGB as a working profile (take Elle for an example). I simply would like to understand their arguments, and they are rarely given, as they would be obvious. Well, they are not for me. The case for archival application is a separate topic for me. I guess ACES AP0 wins here anyway, but if we work in a smaller space in the first place is there a point to archive our work in a bigger one anyway?
He’s right about one important thing. Ultimately the eye of the beholder is the final piece of art. Granted the final accepted printed product is your crème de la crème but it still derives from the final edit you visualize from your monitor.
This subject will likely open a whole can of worms but here's my two cents lol. If you shoot Raw, your images have no defined colour space. For want of a better description your Raw files contain the sensors native colour space, that is to say the maximum amount of colour which the sensor can capture. This can vary from one sensor to another. Ultimately this doesnt matter because whatever colour information is captured at the raw level will still fall into and be contained within the theoretical ProPhoto RGB anyway. This is why Lightroom works in ProPhotoRGB. If it worked in only AdobeRGB, the colour information in the Raw files might exceed it and information would be lost. So where does sRGB and AdobeRGB come into this? Once your Raw file has been processed you have to decide how you intend to use the image. If its going on the web/social media then you have to be aware that the websites themselves are likely not colour managed and only handle sRGB. Not only that but those viewing your images may also be constrained by their monitor to only be able to handle sRGB images too. There would simply be no point sending any image that had a greater colour gamut than sRGB because the benefits would not be viewable on the devices used. On top of that websites/browsers that were not colour managed would not be able to interpret a colour space like AdobeRGB and so render your images incorrectly, the colours would just look terrible. In this case you export your file with the sRGB colourspace and the majority of those viewing/hosting the images will do so as accurately as possible. If your image contained colours outside the sRGB colourspace then yes, you will loose them, thats just the way it is. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now we will all have devices who's gamut exceeds AdobeRGB but right now most don't have that capability. Regards printing, I have to disagree with the idea that virtually no printer can produce colours that exceed AdobeRGB. That is in fact not true. Many printers are capable of exceeding the AdobeRGB colourspace as can be proved when comparing a printers ICC profile to the Gamut of AdobeRGB. Does this mean we should print using ProPhoto as our colour space? Well no and here is the reason. We generally attempt to match as close as possible prints to screen. If you work in AdobeRGB when you print you can at least visually see on a monitor capable of reproducing AdobeRGB what your end result will be. Sure, there might be some colours that might fall outside of AdobeRGB that your printer can theoretically produce that you might loose working this way but most of the colour information will still fit inside the AdobeRGB colourspace and give satisfactory results. So yes, I would agree that when it comes to printing, AdobeRGB is the best method particularly when you are working from a wide gamut colour calibrated monitor. If you are exporting to Photoshop or other external application for further processing then again I'd say give them the maximum information ( so 16bit ProPhotoRGB every time ). To me it just makes sense to work with as much data as possible because once the information is lost it cannot be recovered.
This is fascinating but a lot to take in. I do understand a little about colour space but last year bought a Nikon Z9 which has thrown a spanner in the works. I import my Raw files directly into Nikon NX studio because they look rubbish in LR and PS. I haven’t printed any directly from NX because I can’t resist tweeking the image so I usually export to PS and edit there. However it takes ages to make it look as good as it does in NX ( and I’m not sure that it ever does). I’ve been a bit reluctant to get anything printed as I’m at a loss as to best practice. Any advice welcome.
This sounds like a strange problem. If it looks better in NX studio you should do a test print and compare to Photoshop. Anyway, without a bunch of questions it'd be hard to give you accurate/great advice. My first thought is that NX is applying certain Nikon proprietary "corrections", but that are not retained due to the method of exporting. If exported properly, the images _should_ look identical. But again, it's really, really hard to know.
I first learned photography as a process that moved from visualization to capture to processing to display/output. Presented that way, it makes you think that visualization and capture will set the potential for how your image turns out. But that turns out to be backwards. The process needs to be thought of in reverse. The intended display or output - whether that's glossy photo paper or an HDR screen - defines the limits of what I'll be able to share from the capture. I can capture a RAW image with 14 stops of dynamic range, but if the sRGB color space can only handle 8 stops of dynamic range, I need to think differently about my exposure decisions. My monitor - and all of the people with sRGB screens who are going to see my image - won't show 14 stops of dynamic range. sRGB only has 8-bit color, so will I be able to share the full range of 14-bit color my sensor is capturing? This "reverse" approach to thinking about the photographic pipeline, thinking about capture/display first and then working back to visualization, has been absolutely eye-opening. This video circles the same ideas, Glyn, and I'm glad you're raising awareness of it.
@@oktait Yes, I know, but there's no value in getting into the weeds in a UA-cam comment that took me a few minutes to write and that few people will ever read.
Some results of some printing I did today after watching your recent webinar about printing, and advocating the use of the printer manufacturer's software. I have always used Photoshop for printing, with the files in the ProPhoto colour space, using the profile provided for my printer by the paper company. Comparing Photoshop Prophoto prints with Epson sRGB and Epson aRGB prints, the Photoshop Prophoto print is clearly better than the Epson sRGB print, which is much better than the Epson aRGB image. Not saying this is the way to go. I think I am echoing what you said in the webinar - you need to experiment a bit and find what you think works best for you and your interpretation of the image.
In other words, if Rec2020 or something like that but on open source came that had both, print, monitor and even laser projectors, Adobe RGB and Photo RGB is not a choice (like p3)
An image file with ProPhoto rgb profile will not keep this profile when its sent to a pro Fuji photographic printer FYI. the profile is automaticly coverted to adobe srgb and will not look the same, best to covert these files before sending off to get professional prints .
My ancient NEC monitor can go outside Adobe RGB in at least the reds. That's why I use ProPhoto RGB just for me to enjoy those super rich reds it can do. sRGB is an horrendously dull gamut when it comes to reds. I do not really do printing, but a key part of printing is the viewing illumination spec - angle, luminance, color-temp, CRI, etc. I know enough to know that getting prints and screen matching is more hassle than I think it's worth, and so I would still tend to do my processing work in the widest space I can and assume that media technology eventually catches up. In that vein, I'm also not sure where HDR monitors are headed, and I presume they are delivering a lot more effective color punch also. Rec 2020 with its expanded range seems to be creeping in to still image processing now. Rec 2020 seems to be ProPhoto wide (so wider than Adobe RGB or DCI-P3), but the human eye can see it all.
Another first class tutorial. Excellent discussion. So, following your chat, what specifically have you decided to change in your post-processing workflow now? It would be really useful to know (as a mainly RAW-into-Lightroom Classic -with-occasional PS-to -A4 print guy) how you have adapted this knowledge, given Lightroom's default ProPhoto in Develop mode. Many thanks again
I would take issue with the statement that no printer can print colours outside of ARGB. Top end printers with good quality glossy papers absolutely can. However, although I have seen a definite improvement, especially in reds and greens between srgb and argb, I have yet to see any difference between argb and prophoto. That is on my Elson P800. So why use prohoto? It is because no data wil be lost. In the future taht clour data may be useable.
ARGB? You mean Adobe RGB right? When you say top end printers on glossy paper 'can' print outisde ... are you saying they have a 'larger' colour space or are you saying they print some colours 'outside' of Adobe RGB? It's important to clarify this. The Epson SC-P900 for example has an Adobe RGB gamut volume of 806717 hoewever the Gamut Volume of Adobe RGB is 1154243.
@@glyndewis When the ARGB space is compared with the gamut of a typical high end inkjet printer and ink combination, it is seen that there are some colours that can be reproduced in the print that are outside the ARGB space.
In fairness printed colours that are outside of Adobe rgb are minimal and in practice it is rare that a difference will be seen. However, printers, inks and papers are getting better. So why throw out data that could be used in the future?
Glyn, great video. I am like you , its adobe rgb to adobe rgb printerI have a hardware calibrated Benq monitor and a cannon pro 100 printer. One difference is I'm all about using Bridge and PS. Why do you always start in Lightroom? I know its popular with alot of people. I just can't figure out why. Not trying to start any arguments, just curious.🙂
great tuto. I often have problem in composites. I am working in lightroom classic in prophoto on raw and i export in photoshop in prophoto and make a composite with images coming from web, so i suppose srgb. I think it is ok and come back to lightroom and have color shifts... So, I usually export photo from lightroom in srgb, make composites in photoshop and finish everything in photoshop and, if needed, import srgb in LRC to print. How do you see such composite workflow ? can you please make another tuto more in details about your adobe rgb export and color profile setup in photoshop and printing. I am using a cano pro-300 and more and more leaving LRC for printing and using the canon software "Professional Print and Layout". It seems that Matt Kloskowski now is alos using Epson software instead of LRC.
Great insight into colour space mate, presented to your usual high standards. This reminded me to finally check my colour spaces in LR and PS. Had to alter them both! I also noticed that LR was set to send external edits to PS 2023, not 2024. I thought that would have been taken care of in the update, so worth checking eh? Also noticed that PS has a setting, 'Desaturate Monitor Color' by 20%. Although it's unchecked/ticked on my MAC. Why would you need to desaturate the monitor colour? 🤔 Anyway, thanks for sharing, really helpful. 😎😎😎
My one question is, I have a Spyder to colour correct my laptop screens and my monitor, which I do once a month but if I set the colour profile to ProPhoto or Adobe RGB on the units they are more cyan blue where the colour corrected with the Spyder has more for a warm look. So which one is right or do I use?
Great! You have answered some of the most important questions I had. Yet, I wonder what color space I should use on my excellent BenQ monitor (sw271) when editing in Lightroom (and any other editing software) , since I'm only sharing my photos to social media .. If I use Adobe RGB then I will enjoy a rich color experience while editing but when I export it to an sRGB Jpeg , the output will be reduced somehow. On the other hand, if I will be editing with sRGB mode on my monitor ,then I'm not taking the full advantage of it... What is the solution to this dilemma? Thanks
I use Adobe RGB, but will calibrating in Native. The reason is that I want to work in the largest color space the monitor can provide. Plus I think there are less steps in the conversion process from Lightroom/Photoshop to the monitor. Look at some of Artisright's videos for Benq.
There is an ongoing discussion as to using Native or Adobe RGB. I know Art and we botrh have a mutual friend in Dr Chris Bai from BenQ who in. my conversation suggested Adobe RGB
Unfortunately, it is not true that printers do not go beyond AdobeRGB. Even my old Canon Pro-1 exceeded AdobeRGB on barite paper, especially in the green and yellow shades. Unfortunately I can't upload a graphical representation of that profile as measured by the calibration probe.
Printers can print outside the Adobe RGB in some colours BUT nowhere near ProPhotoRGB he3nce why it's best toprint in Adobe RGB unlike the advice I have seen saying you can. send a ProPhoto RGB file to a printer. You can but it will not look good.
@@glyndewis It depends on the quality of the algorithm that converts the ProPhoto gamut to the printer gamut. In fact, you have to use a similar algorithm when converting from ProPhoto to AdobeRGB, only you do it in Photoshop (or Lightroom,...) instead of in the printer software. In addition, the same algorithm then converts AdobeRGB to the printer gamut.
Ok I know this a dumb question, but I would like it confirming please. I have a Benq PD2725U monitor. I have just been editing a picture I took today of two motorbikes that I intend to share to them via email, using Lightroom. I made the pic look pretty good and felt it was ready to be sent off. Then I realised I had my monitor set to REC 709. So I’m going to need to start the edit again. I have m-book, P3 and sRGB, but I don’t have AdobeRGB. So which monitor profile do you think it is best for me to edit in, with the fact the customer is going to see the result for the first time via email. Thanks for your help. Martyn.
That's great information! Still a little confused though... Can someone explain what's the point of importing into Lightroom as ProPhoto while all other actions are executed in AdobeRGB? Shouldn't I be importing into Lightroom in AdobeRGB too? Camera shoots in AdobeRGB (or sRGB) Import to Lightroom in ProPhoto (standard setting) Export to .jpg for print in AdobeRGB? Export to Photoshop in AdobeRGB Export from Photoshop to .jpg/.tiff in AdobeRGB
You're not importing into Lightroom in ProPhoto; Lightroom renders previews viewable as ProPhoto RGB. Camera only shoots in Adobe RGB or sRGB 'if' you shoot in Jpeg otherwise you shoot Raw so no Color Space is assigned ... it's merely viewable as a Rendered Preivew in ProPhoto RGB. Some would say to remain in ProPhoto when exporting to Photoshop or even print however that's not what I do as I like a consistent workflow. Displays also don't show images in ProPhoto RGB as no display out there is capable of display the entire color space plus human eye cannot see all of the ProPhoto RGB color space. For consistency I stick with Adobe RGB, BUT you could choose to work in ProPhoto RGB 'if' your reason is for future proofing however ... 'you' still won't be capable of seeing the entire color space anyway.
Is the conversion also the reason why my images look oversaturated on iphones and after export from lightroom. I have this bizarre issue, my image will be oversaturated after export from Lightroom. Monitor is set to srgb, exported in srgb so there shouldn't be a conversion issue. What could it be?
Glyn, you didn't ask a question would have been fascinated to hear the answer to. Let's ignore sRGB for the second and go to Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB. Who created BOTH of these? Adobe. WHY? Why did they create ProPhoto RGB at all if it is of no practical use for either display or for printing? My gut says they know the limitations of Adobe RGB and are future-proofing with ProPhoto RGB. I can see the logic of why not to use ProPhoto RGB but if that logic is correct (and I have no reason to doubt the gentleman) I come back to the question of why did Adobe create ProPhoto in the first place and why did they set it to the default for Lightroom? I can only assume they are doing it now so that in future, when displays do have that capability, and when printers do have that capability, then the images edited using ProPhoto can simply be printed without further change/edit. I'd love to know the Adobe answer rather than the Benq answer.
hello, thanks for the insight. may i ask, should i choose to work with adobe RGB if i only have monitor gamut like sRGB 99% AdobeRGB 74% NTSC 72% or is it better with sRGB which can represents 99% them? thanks in advance.
Hello Glyn, thank you for such interesting content. To reduce file space, MP3 eliminates certain frequencies that are not audible to humans, but according to many specialists, reduces the sensation of "rich" sound that we have in uncompressed audio. Won't the same happen with color spaces? Let me explain: if I use a very wide color space, like ProPhoto, although my eyes and devices cannot show me the full range of nuances, that color space has no loss of information in the edition, it is not "mutilated", and Therefore, when I convert it to a smaller space when printing, such as AdobeRGB, I will get all the information available after editing; We cannot go from 70dpi to 300dpi without loss, but we can go the other way around. Makes sense?. Thank you
Accurate, read my comment above as I didn't see yours before now. Why do we listen to 44.1kHz audio when ears can't handle more than 22kHz? ;) Same as we listen and record in to 48kHz, 96kHz and even higher. DAC contains a filter that is very steep at lower frequency's that translates in to modulation/distortion. Higher frequency (that we can't hear) translates in to less steep filtering in DAC. Same can be said about our editing tools in LR and Photoshop. The more volume and bigger container we have, the more evenly edits get applied, without making huge visual errors after color transform. ACE (Adobe Color Engine as shown in Color Settings would transform colors "RELATIVELY" if set to RELATIVE from ProPhotoRGB in to your monitors calibrated colorspace, even if it is only 90% of sRGB, which is quite possible on older monitors and low end laptops. This whole discussion is a non-topic if people start to learn how color transform work. There is only one gotcha, and that is you have to use 16 bit if using big colorspace, or else you will end up getting artifacts and stepping in gradients when converting down to sRGB.
years ago a friend showed me an organ that made many kinds of instments sounds one was a trumpet it sounded just so real he then pushed in a few stops and it no longer sounded right after he then just played the stops he closed and you could hear nothing. so nothing we hear makes a big difference .
@@chazM6116 But that is analogous and not digital, so therefore not the same. What I'm talking about is if you push a curve in RGB with 256 colors pr channel (sRGB), the small adjustments you do is a steeper one compared to a curve in AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB with a heck of a lot more tones between. Compare this to throwing a brick in to a 4gallon bucket vs brick in to a bath tub. The modification of bytes in those respective gamuts is quite a big difference. The ripples and splash is going to make a bigger difference in the bucket vs bath tub, and that is your sRGB container vs ProPhotoRGB container.
I have a question: at the end of the video ( 9:30 ) you show the export settings from Lightroom to Photoshop. So: you export on TIFF and Resolution 240? I can understand the TIFF but why not 300 resolution? I thought that 300 affects the quality of the printing (300dpi) or not?
Glyn, that was extremely informative. Now I know NOT to use ProPhoto (which I anyway suspected). But with Macs these days, they often want to default to “Display P3” which is similar in size to Adobe RGB, but different. Could you please follow up on your video and include a discussion of that and what to do with it? I’ve been confused whether to use Display P3 and then convert to Adobe RBG or sRGB for the export or to rather change the default settings to Adobe RGB from the beginning. Thanks!
My notion (which may be wrong) is to use ProPhoto so that no colors are lost at the outset. From there my color menu is parred back by my monitor and, ultimately, by my printer. By starting out with more colors than I could ever print, am I somehow ending up with some sort of avoidable color inaccuracy in my final result? Has anyone compared prints that began in the ProPhoto color space to the same prints originally confined to Adobe RGB color space?
"Has anyone compared prints that began in the ProPhoto color space to the same prints originally confined to Adobe RGB color space?" This will depend on how potentially if you have out of gamut colors that don't fit into AdobeRGB, and you are using ProPhoto RGB. Than you need to figure out how will you squeeze the colors in AdobeRGB, and depending on the method sometime scaled rendering intent, although there are manual and custom ways to do it as well, you will get different results. Basically if you have to take wider gamut colors and squeeze them into smaller color space, you have to sacrifice something, usually the level of details in over saturated areas. You can just cut it off when there is out of gamut colors, or you can proportionally squeeze everything into smaller color space at the expense of changing the color appearance of even those colors that can be printed. This is the rendering intent method. relative colorimetric vs perceptual and two other are common. There are some tools like DXO PhotoLab that offers more advance algorithms for this, but its not Adobe. Off course no Printer can print ProPhoto gamut, since its so large, and Adobe RGB is not always one for one representation of the color space for the printer, based on ink and paper combination. So sometimes you might have some colors in Adobe RGB that you can print, and some that are outside of the AdobeRGB. The ECI-RGB V2 color space is one of the standardized RGB color spaces that is trying to go beyond AdobeRGB ever so slightly to solve this issue, and so is new DXO wide Gamut color space, but only available for their products. Of course if you are printing black and white images, it does not matter if its sRGB or ProPhoto or whatever, there is no out of gamut colors to worry about. So it depends on the image. Also it depends on the capture devices. Is is in JPEG in which case probably sRGB and AdobeRGB are avilable only , or is it RAW file, in which case you are also depending on the processing of a specific application you use for developing a raw files. C1. Lr. DXO or something else. They will all work a bit different. As you said, most RAW programs start with wider color gamut for the working profile, but sometimes ProPhoto is just too much so technically its an overkill for virtually all situations , but it is a safest color space in terms of storing gall the color data. Its just that sooner or later you have to convert to a smaller color space for output. Ideally you would start with wide, but not too wide. AdobeRGB, ECIv2 and DXO Wide Gamut, are designed for that, in that order. Adobe RGB 1998 is the older as the name implies so sometimes its not enough for some monitors and printers that can go wider. Again depends on the color in the image itself of course.
Thank you so much for your incredible reply. I'm going to keep it and re-read it several times. (I know enough about colorspaces to be dangerous but can't claim that I'm well informed.) Things that I wonder about are: Where do all those greens and blues left out of Adobe RGB occur in nature? If we could invent something close to a ProPhoto monitor, how different would our on-screen perceptions be? Would our emotional response be all that different? How did the original scientists who determined the full colorspace that humans perceive manage to do this, when there's no man-made medium to project them? Because they're so similiar, I wonder why the P3 and Adobe RGB color spaces can't be combined into one. Thanks again, Trevor @@KrunoslavStifter
"...there's no device that can display ProPhoto color space". True, but that's not the point. The point is, having ALL of the color information available to you when processing allows for deeper greens, yellows and reds, oranges, purples, better gradations, etc. You don't see them all on your screen, but they are there nonetheless. Once you complete processing and begin to convert for final use, the conversion from ProPhoto to sRGB will give you a much better result. The mathematical values of each color you can't see are converted as closely as possible to the colors you CAN see, thus giving you richer color bit-depth and more image detail. Remember, it's "garbage in, garbage out". Mixing and adjusting the colors you don't see often times gives you new colors you DO see and that can be printed.
So where are we with this? I currently process my raws in Adobe rgb 16 bit. Export out as Srgb jpeg for web and print? Occasionally send tifs if the client requests
If we can't see the entire gamut of ProPhoto, but Adobe RGB falls within ProPhoto's range, what's the point of ever using PP? Possibly to futureproof our photos for new technology and breakthrough medical procedures where humans may have the choice to outfit themselves with ProPhoto eyeballs?
Who cares? The benefit of a larger colorspace is future proofing. Who knows what tech will be available in 5-10yrs? Good thing our computers can already handle it juat in case it helps then. For now, yes, your screen requires a color space transformation (or will clip), but that's fine. There is no actual downside to editing in prophoto rgb... you'll be viewing in a different colorspace by default and what you don't see won't hurt you. Before you print, you'll be viewing in an even more limited colorspace during soft proofing. We already know you should edit differently for differenr screens and different papers... You'll be fine in prophoto too
Equally so in Adobe RGB ... I can see that. Future Proofing? Getting your eyes upgraded in the future then so you can see the ProPhoto RGB colour space? 🤔
After watching this I changed my export Lightroom export profiles to Adobe RGB, but when I eport from Lightroom to Photoshop, I still see that asterisk. How can I confirm that the profile in Photoshop is now Adobe RGB.
Go to Edit > Convert to Profile. Don’t do anything else other than look to see what the profile is. Check working colour settings in Photoshop are Adobe RGB also check Lightroom preferences set to Adobe RGB for external editing.
Well, I did as you instructed, went to edit.convert to profile and found the profile was CMYK!!! 🤣 Changed it to Adobe RGB.Went to Color Settings and it was sRGB, so I changed that to Adobe RGB as well. I changed my export settings in Lightromm. Fingers crossed.
if 99% of the people who view your photos dont use calibrated monitors whats the point in caliubrating? really I think best reference is the iphone. it has a great display and its so commonly used. if your photo looks good on your iphone you are good to go. IMO
Hmm... I think Dr Bai is wrong. To say that no printer can print outside of Adobe RGB I'm almost positive is false. Think with me for a moment. One, I've heard from another color expert that some printers CAN print outside of Adobe RGB-mind you, not totally outside, but in some limited areas. But, just thinking about it... monitors can get to full, or 99%, of Adobe RGB with the very limited... R G B !!! How many photo printers have way more colors than that? Most photo printers, in my opinion, with multi-color inksets, should be able to go out of the bounds of Adobe RGB in some areas. But, also, there is no downside to using Pro Photo IF it is done properly and with appropriate care. Yes, easier said than done when color management is almost the blackest magic ever, but manageable with a bit of research and effort.
@@glyndewis But seriously, working in Adobe RGB isn't going to be the difference in how anyone's work is perceived. I work in Pro Photo. I am confident that working in Adobe would be imperceptible.
Personal choice, but not good for skin tones (more yellow / green) and definitely missng out on colours that your display and printer can reproduce / show
@@glyndewis the avrg display or a phone can do only sRGB. Anything else is an illusion. And yeah I calibrate displays and edit photos for magz for 25+ years.
Modern displays are capable of 100% Adobe RGB however manufacturers don't state 100% becuase it's not possible to say all models will be when mass production ... ehich is why 99% Adobe RGB is stated. Also, the time doing something doesn't make a person 'right' ... I see people that have been driving for many years and I wouldn't dare be their passenger 😃
POINTS TO ADD:
1) For ProPhoto colour space, it is recommended to use as archival purpose. Because the colour space is so huge, it can be adopted for future use.
2) In general, Adobe RGB colour space is larger than printer colour space with the exception of cyan colour. The cyan colour is more saturated in printer colour space than Adobe RGB colour space.
3) When photos are sent to photo labs, the printer software will adjust the tone curve to produce more pleasing colours for the prints.
1) I agree, there is no other reason to use it, well, to edit as-well.
2) Epson K3 as Jeff Schewe said falls outside AdobeRGB, and that was released to the market some decade(s?) ago. I believe quite a lot of Epsons have the range and means to go beyond the AdobeRGB gamut, but if you are using those kinds of printers, then you are probably also using a RIP and not some Photoshop dialogue box :-) And yo will have a better control over the color transform from there. I believe Yellow, Red and maybe even Cyan falls outside on Epsons, but don't hold this against me, I just order the prints these days.
3) Most color LABs I have used still demands sRGB, this is not because of their printers gamuts, mediums or workflow. They got things sorted out. The main issue is the person who is going to "apply" and not "convert" colorspace to their TIFFs, so that the ProPhotoRGB document they said they converted to sRGB - is really a ProPhotoRGB with an applied sRGB metadata. The customers is "always right", so in most cases those LABs are going to pay up or do the reprint for free which is a huge waste of money. So it is really because of the Karens and Kevins they avoid allowing anything else than sRGB ;-) My local print LAB has newest Canons and Epsons, they are more than capable of printing beyond AdobeRGB on the right medium, but they still do sRGB only 😀
Point one was the first thing that popped into my head. Great video!
This is so interesting!! I have been wondering for months why German printing company whitewall say that their printers use the sRGB colour space and nothing else. Can't possibly be true! I am curious to know: are you saying that the "convert to profile" command in Photoshop does not work? Lately, I have taken to converting my images from ProPhoto to sRGB for soft proofing, figuring that if whitewall print within sRGB I should soft proof for that colour space in order to have an accurate preview of what my prints. But from what you say, it would be better to send them ProPhoto/AdobeRGB .tif files and let them do what they please with them... the result will likely be good, as I imagine that they have the best algorithms but still, this means that the final touch is completely outside of my control, which is a bit disturbing after I spend so many hours/ months/ years editing an image to my liking.
Adobe RGB lacks real monitor colors, P3 lacks real printable colors. ProPhoto holds both but vastly exceeds what we need and that causes problems as you note.
A much better option would be Rec2020. It covers even laser projectors and nearly all of Pointer’s gamut, yet doesn’t have fake colors (ones humans cannot see).
It would be amazing if Rec2020 came with Photoshop, or shipped by default with Windows/MacOS.
LR’s native primaries are Rec2020 when working in HDR mode.
Darktable (as for v. 4.8.1 at least) uses rec.2020 as its default working profile and you can set it as output profile as well. This is a RAW editor, however, so not exactly what you seeking. Though I think both Gimp and Krita allow for choice of a custom colour profile and they don't fall far behind Photoshop in their capabilities. And getting back to RAW editors, I think free/libre software such as Darktable or RawTherapee already surpassed Lightroom. If not sponsored or constrained by other means, I don't find a reason to stick with Adobe products anymore. Though I'm not a professional photographer, so I may be missing something.
I run the prepress department in a print company in Germany. We use eciRGB v2 instead of Adobe RGB.
Adobe RGB has a white point of D65 while eciRGB v2 is using D50.
That‘s closer to the actual paper white in use.
I edit in ProPhoto because when editing you move the histogram about and colours outside of the smaller colour spaces can move into a space if you limit the colour range what can fill the space if you move colours inward? after editing I will then convert to the correct profile for its output needs. I hope I explained myself.
Another reason why I don’t use Lightroom!….lol (I use Bridge with Camera Raw) & set my colour space to Adobe rgb. I’ve known for a long time that Pro photos colour space is beyond what we can see & print. Some say they are future proofing their images. But now know that if in pro photo that there is a conversion back to what we see, i’ll stick to Adobe rgb. With a correctly calibrated monitor, I do all my own printing & my prints are exactly what I see on my screen as in tones & colours. So if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!…..lol Great insight Glyn, thanks for clearing this up for everyone else! Lol 🙏👌🤗👍
To this day I can’t reason why Adobe doesn’t give us the option to set Lightroom to Adobe RGB if we want to🤔
There are printer devices that do print outside AdobeRGB (i.e. fine art printing), like Epson plotter with more then 10 inks.
I saw a similar conversation with this gent right before I purchased a new monitor and decided against buying a printer - he saved me a lot. He also talked about how the type of computer-monitor connection USB-C, USB-A??? or HDMI connection can also impact what our monitors see/interpret the color or the image.
Please keep making these kind of videos, where you are taking about more theoretic aspects. I learned at lot from this about the photo space.
I am a retired Color Scientist that worked for Creo for many years. It is so refreshing to hear someone who knows what they are talking about in Color Science. I shoot in RAW. I use Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW to convert to Adobe RGB in Photoshop and I print on an Epson Stylus Pro 4900. Thank You for doing this video. I wish more professional printers would supply print profiles for Photographers. It is possible to turn color control into science and not art. However, commercial printing has been done as a high art for many years. I have great respect for highly skilled pressman.
4:36 Interestingly he says we have little or no impact on how the color transform happens, but we do have when setting Perceptual, Relative or Absolute as target. Also interestingly, he assumes that you have to see or have to make use of the theoretical colors in ProPhotoRGB to really have an advantage of using it, but he don't consider the "latitude" part of having more to pull in. Why even shooting RAW when we could have shot in camera to AdobeRGB and printed on our AdobeRGB printer, right? No, we make use of all the invisible data in the RAW file even if we don't know this. Sometimes it is better to have a RAW conversion taking place in that bigger colorspace to make use of better tools in RAW backend that we users can't naturally see, because some filters have more to work with. That's why also using ProPhotoRGB is good when editing in Photoshop, so the filters and tools have more latitude to work with. This is an old topic and this horse have been flogged a long time ago - way too much... I like to make people think about audio when also think about this case. Would you even listen to music in 44.1kHz when your ears only hear 22kHz? Yes, of course, we all do it daily. Why would you listen to in anything higher than 16bit audio when 80% of stereos our there can't take advantage of higer bitrate like 24 or 32float? Why do we continuously stream/listen to audio shot in 48kHz, 96kHz and maybe even higher? That's because of the DAC filters in your audio components (correlate this to a RAW converter in photography, or tools in Photoshop). If you have a 22kHz track - the noise filter in DAC would be steep and you will get distortion in audio in the spectrum you can hear. Why 44.1kHz and 96kHz audio? The filter is not that steep, the distortion is less, there is less need of adding dither/noise (as well as in photography)... So you can see where I'm going with this... I'm happy that he is satisfied with his workflow, and it is probably enough for his use case, but there are also advantages of using higher settings even if the monitors and you can't see all of the data, and this should not be disregarded in some workflows. I have one counterpoint why using bigger colorspace ProPhotoRGB is bad, and you can thank Dan Margulis over at Ledet and Modern Color Theory for this point as I didn't see this earlier.. You do really NEED to use 16bit if you are using high DR/colorful images in AdobeRGB and ProphotoRGB/LAB, and this is because of how big those colorspaces are. When you convert down from ProPhotoRGB 8bit with lots of colors - to sRGB 8bit, then you will most likely run in to rounding errors and such that will appear as artifacts in the image, most of the times in smooth gradients as stepping, and in hard color shift edges as almost dead pixel color errors. So really, if you do any edits in AdobeRGB and higher, use 16bit if in doubt / image has a lot of colors and gradations. Otherwise, I wouldn't consider using anything less than AdobeRGB 16 bit if I had to make serious edits. Btw, I believe colorspace in Adobe Lightroom is MelissaRGB which is relative the same as ProPhotoRGB, but I think the gamma is default 2.2 and not 1.8 which ProPhotoRGB use :)
4:07 I had to add worryingly since he is an ICC guy. I do wonder how much he is in to how the LUT and conversion spaces work as you have one working colorspace (usually AdobeRGB in Photoshop), you have storage colorspace of image file (whatever Lightroom export to Photoshop), then you have your monitor/conversion space where system put the color data in to and calculate what to show monitor. You can set how Photoshop choose to render out of gamut colors by using Relative, Perceptual, Absolute and Saturation - when system opens an ProPhotoRGB file and your monitor profile is sRGB or AdobeRGB at the best. The tweaks you do to the "theoretical colors" is shown on screen using color transformation and calibration - toward what out of bounds rules you set. Just fill a layer with (LAB) 10, 80, -80, and I'll bet your monitor is able to display it despite it is a highly out gamut color. That's because of the color transform. Look up Jeff Schewe and sRGB vs ProPhotoRGB in printing, you see how AdobeRGB even falls outside an Epson printer with K3 ink, and this was loooong time ago.
Time to use P3 color space for everything delivered to clients and for printing, since this is what mobile phones, TV-sets and newer PC-monitors works with (close enough to Adobe RGB for everything), and this is what is used for video too. What do you guys think?
I worked in the Photo Lab at the National Geographic Society for 40 years and when Digital color output and editing came on the scene we used Adobe RGB 1998 and it really worked well for our purposes. I sttill use Adobe RGB. To me using a space like Pro Photo RGB which can't be reproduced and doesn't represent the real world production process isn't necessary.
It's ONLY for editing not output
Superb discussion, there is also the other variable to take into account too. In that papers all have different ability to present colour spaces too, for example a matte paper has a smaller theoretical colour space than a baryta or a full gloss.
Having a well managed work flow allows you to get the best from your images, which as you’ve found with your exhibition prints is a real joy.
He is essentially totally right in than Pro Photo is way bigger than we can see, monitors can handle, printers can print and papers can reproduce.
Hi Glyn...what a great video ..one of the best I have ever seen......Having been a pro photographer for over 50yrs and started in Black & White...the comments go on....and the guy is right ProPhoto has so big a space nothing can touch it....but I am so upset that photographers today and others....all like to saturate colour combinations to make what they take even better or as we have all done.....put something in that is not really there.....Thank you
The printing dilemma is very easy:
1- If the lab can't provide their own profile from their printer for color proofing, export and send in sRGB to be super safe
2- If the lab provide with their profiles (I was already receiving them in 2007, so it's not new stuff, it's old procedure), color proof with those profiles
Other then that, I postproduce with the entire workflow in ProPhoto, and the profile conversion for printing is the very last thing to do; I use ProPhoto all the way because you work with the biggest amount of color gradations, EVEN IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM, the file remains more intact after heavy retouch. So there's no excuse to not work in ProPhoto, at least if you work on a pro monitor that can display close to full AdobeRGB spectrum (mine covers 98% of AdobeRGB) and that's fully calibrated with a DeltaE under 0.5 (mine is 0.2/0.3), with PVA or IPS panels. Of course if you work on TN panels with sRGB capabilities and you don0t even calibrate it, then your colours are a lottery, and you can work with the profile you want, nothing will change, there's no way to have control and integrity.
Well said!
Interesting point you make about working in ProPhoto RGB becuase ... "you work with the biggest amount of color gradations, EVEN IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM". As there is currently no devices that can show ProPhoto RGB, and playing Devil's Advocate here, how do you know and how can you tell that the 'the file remains more intact after heavy retouch' when having worked in ProPhoto RGB ... that you also cannot see the full spectrum of? Surely with no devices being able to display ProPhoto RGB, then this can only (at the current time) be an assumption.
🤣@@J5388T
@@glyndewis I agree with, it's just a personal assumption; it's my way of doing things, and of course anyone can compare its own needs and choices. Certainly that's my response on the dilemma, can't be THE response for sure.
My mindset would be equal, to do an example, to "I'll buy the car - given what I can afford - with the best traction, stability and corner grip on the market; I'm not a pro pilot and I drive on open roads, so I won't be able to feel and enjoy all that traction and grip, but I do assume that while driving normally, this car will still be safer and grippier then another car driven in the very same relaxed way".
So I can't really know were the limit is, I don't feel it, dunno if in an emergency I'll be able to use this better road grip to save my life, but still, I assume that buying the grippier car I can pay for will give me a performance which is at least not inferior to any other solution.
It's like "if there's a point of failure, I want to be me, not my gear; so I'll use the wider gamut profile I can get, and then if the file will end up being destroyed by the workflow, that will be entirely my fault, and not a limit of me using a lower standard in profile gamut".
Hope that makes sense! 🙂
Great video! Dan Marguiles used to do a demo on why not to use Pro Photo when he was at Photoshop World. My students used to be confused about why Adobe decided to standardize on Pro Photo, when none of our printers could reproduce that space. I get it, understand why Adobe adopted it, but love this video for its clear headed explanation. I should add that there are similarities between mastering engineers use of high bit rate in audio, even if the final files end up being saved in a lower bitrate. Similarly, the vast majority of audio files have a smaller audio footprint, so some ask why digitize in a larger space? The reason most give are either a) Lower noise floor for post-production work, b) Assumption of preserving every bit of data, and c) It somehow sounds better, although this is much in debate. So, Adobe's use of a larger color space can be viewed as forward thinking, being setup for future advancements, sensors with a larger color space, etc. Still doesn't make the transition to print any less confusing! Keep up the great videos!
Just proves there are experts, then there are ‘real’ experts! Great stuff Glyn 👏👍😀
Thanks for this really concise and clear video. I recently did my first photo book and it led me to frazzle my brain over colour space, print lab ICC profiles, soft proofing, etc. having previously had default LR/PS settings and exporting high quality sRGB. 👍
After years of experience this video made my knowledge more clear as i am confused before. Thank you for the clarification!
Terrific! Thank you!
What an absolutely fascinating discussion. I send my files off to Loxley Colour as Srgb and they do a colour correction.
Completely agree. Annoying Lr doesn’t let you use AdobeRGB as your working space. Started experiencing artifacts with in-gamut gradients when I went over to ProPhoto with Lr. (My background: been working with colour spaces since 1987 including working on the JPEG algorithm in 1988).
Thank you, very informative, changed my setting in Photoshop and Lightroom Classic.
Thanks for addressing this really important and yet amazingly complicated topic! If I understand correctly, your workflow consists is keeping the RAW file in LR, unedited, in ProPhoto for archival purposes, and editing it in PS after having converted it to Adobe RGB? Do you send the .tif to the lab in Adobe RGB or sRGB? Sorry if this has been addressed in the comments, I read as many as i could but couldn't go through them all.
Interesting but at the same time somewhat confusing. I've read somewhere else that wide-gamut and linear working profiles are used not for the direct visible results but to give our software a better environment for all the calculations resulting in smoother gradients and so on when we export our work to smaller RGB space as a final product. However, the same people who wrote this were discouraging the use of ProPhoto RGB (as a working profile) in favour of such colour spaces as rec.2020 or ACEScg - they've not explained why, though.
There is a long standing argument whether to use ProPhoto RGB or not. This is personal choice and you’re NOT wrong ‘to’ use it or ‘not’ to use it. Although so much of ProPhoto RGB cannot been seen by the human eye, replicated in displays or printed, it is considered good for archival and future proofing. Your workspace depends on your ‘content’ … if you’re retouching photographs then ProPhoto RGB / Adobe RGB is the way to go.
@@glyndewis As far as I understood this, the choice of a working profile can possibly have quite a significant outcome for your pictures - at least if you perform any colour mixing or colour grading operations, or apply blending modes in such software as Krita or Gimp (Photoshop is hardcoded to ProPhoto RGB primaries anyway). Don't take me wrong - I don't want to pretend I'm smarter than I actually am. But while I can understand why linear gamma profiles in conjunction with high bit depth floating can be beneficial for some operations, I just don't know the reasons behind some people's objections against ProPhoto RGB as a working profile (take Elle for an example). I simply would like to understand their arguments, and they are rarely given, as they would be obvious. Well, they are not for me. The case for archival application is a separate topic for me. I guess ACES AP0 wins here anyway, but if we work in a smaller space in the first place is there a point to archive our work in a bigger one anyway?
He’s right about one important thing. Ultimately the eye of the beholder is the final piece of art. Granted the final accepted printed product is your crème de la crème but it still derives from the final edit you visualize from your monitor.
Thank You very much, Glyn!
This subject will likely open a whole can of worms but here's my two cents lol. If you shoot Raw, your images have no defined colour space. For want of a better description your Raw files contain the sensors native colour space, that is to say the maximum amount of colour which the sensor can capture. This can vary from one sensor to another. Ultimately this doesnt matter because whatever colour information is captured at the raw level will still fall into and be contained within the theoretical ProPhoto RGB anyway. This is why Lightroom works in ProPhotoRGB. If it worked in only AdobeRGB, the colour information in the Raw files might exceed it and information would be lost. So where does sRGB and AdobeRGB come into this? Once your Raw file has been processed you have to decide how you intend to use the image. If its going on the web/social media then you have to be aware that the websites themselves are likely not colour managed and only handle sRGB. Not only that but those viewing your images may also be constrained by their monitor to only be able to handle sRGB images too. There would simply be no point sending any image that had a greater colour gamut than sRGB because the benefits would not be viewable on the devices used. On top of that websites/browsers that were not colour managed would not be able to interpret a colour space like AdobeRGB and so render your images incorrectly, the colours would just look terrible. In this case you export your file with the sRGB colourspace and the majority of those viewing/hosting the images will do so as accurately as possible. If your image contained colours outside the sRGB colourspace then yes, you will loose them, thats just the way it is. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now we will all have devices who's gamut exceeds AdobeRGB but right now most don't have that capability. Regards printing, I have to disagree with the idea that virtually no printer can produce colours that exceed AdobeRGB. That is in fact not true. Many printers are capable of exceeding the AdobeRGB colourspace as can be proved when comparing a printers ICC profile to the Gamut of AdobeRGB. Does this mean we should print using ProPhoto as our colour space? Well no and here is the reason. We generally attempt to match as close as possible prints to screen. If you work in AdobeRGB when you print you can at least visually see on a monitor capable of reproducing AdobeRGB what your end result will be. Sure, there might be some colours that might fall outside of AdobeRGB that your printer can theoretically produce that you might loose working this way but most of the colour information will still fit inside the AdobeRGB colourspace and give satisfactory results. So yes, I would agree that when it comes to printing, AdobeRGB is the best method particularly when you are working from a wide gamut colour calibrated monitor. If you are exporting to Photoshop or other external application for further processing then again I'd say give them the maximum information ( so 16bit ProPhotoRGB every time ). To me it just makes sense to work with as much data as possible because once the information is lost it cannot be recovered.
What great information!!!, it is so incredible, I learn so much today, Thank you again for all this info
You're welocme ... thanks for watching
This is fascinating but a lot to take in. I do understand a little about colour space but last year bought a Nikon Z9 which has thrown a spanner in the works. I import my Raw files directly into Nikon NX studio because they look rubbish in LR and PS. I haven’t printed any directly from NX because I can’t resist tweeking the image so I usually export to PS and edit there. However it takes ages to make it look as good as it does in NX ( and I’m not sure that it ever does). I’ve been a bit reluctant to get anything printed as I’m at a loss as to best practice. Any advice welcome.
This sounds like a strange problem. If it looks better in NX studio you should do a test print and compare to Photoshop. Anyway, without a bunch of questions it'd be hard to give you accurate/great advice. My first thought is that NX is applying certain Nikon proprietary "corrections", but that are not retained due to the method of exporting. If exported properly, the images _should_ look identical. But again, it's really, really hard to know.
Thanks Glyn. This was so interesting.
Good information Glyn.
Thanks Lyn
Like always, a place where you get awesome instructions and information that you can trust.
I first learned photography as a process that moved from visualization to capture to processing to display/output. Presented that way, it makes you think that visualization and capture will set the potential for how your image turns out. But that turns out to be backwards. The process needs to be thought of in reverse. The intended display or output - whether that's glossy photo paper or an HDR screen - defines the limits of what I'll be able to share from the capture. I can capture a RAW image with 14 stops of dynamic range, but if the sRGB color space can only handle 8 stops of dynamic range, I need to think differently about my exposure decisions. My monitor - and all of the people with sRGB screens who are going to see my image - won't show 14 stops of dynamic range. sRGB only has 8-bit color, so will I be able to share the full range of 14-bit color my sensor is capturing?
This "reverse" approach to thinking about the photographic pipeline, thinking about capture/display first and then working back to visualization, has been absolutely eye-opening. This video circles the same ideas, Glyn, and I'm glad you're raising awareness of it.
dude, RAW is linear encoded, sRGB is not... so it is not about "14" vs "8"..
@@oktait Yes, I know, but there's no value in getting into the weeds in a UA-cam comment that took me a few minutes to write and that few people will ever read.
Great interview! Thank you.
Some results of some printing I did today after watching your recent webinar about printing, and advocating the use of the printer manufacturer's software. I have always used Photoshop for printing, with the files in the ProPhoto colour space, using the profile provided for my printer by the paper company. Comparing Photoshop Prophoto prints with Epson sRGB and Epson aRGB prints, the Photoshop Prophoto print is clearly better than the Epson sRGB print, which is much better than the Epson aRGB image. Not saying this is the way to go. I think I am echoing what you said in the webinar - you need to experiment a bit and find what you think works best for you and your interpretation of the image.
I remember ad agencies always request Adobe RGB colorspace, as it will not shift much after converting to CMYK.
In other words, if Rec2020 or something like that but on open source came that had both, print, monitor and even laser projectors, Adobe RGB and Photo RGB is not a choice (like p3)
An image file with ProPhoto rgb profile will not keep this profile when its sent to a pro Fuji photographic printer FYI. the profile is automaticly coverted to adobe srgb and will not look the same, best to covert these files before sending off to get professional prints .
But actually, you don't print in either sRGB or AdobeRGB. Printers can only print in CMYK + some special colors in certain models. 😊
No a printer is a RGB device
But current printers can only replicate Adobe RGB in the print ☺️
I don't think it's correct. CMYK is for quadricolor printing press.
@@JohnMacLeanPhotography
They have CMYK ink but its not a CMYK press.
My ancient NEC monitor can go outside Adobe RGB in at least the reds. That's why I use ProPhoto RGB just for me to enjoy those super rich reds it can do. sRGB is an horrendously dull gamut when it comes to reds.
I do not really do printing, but a key part of printing is the viewing illumination spec - angle, luminance, color-temp, CRI, etc. I know enough to know that getting prints and screen matching is more hassle than I think it's worth, and so I would still tend to do my processing work in the widest space I can and assume that media technology eventually catches up.
In that vein, I'm also not sure where HDR monitors are headed, and I presume they are delivering a lot more effective color punch also. Rec 2020 with its expanded range seems to be creeping in to still image processing now. Rec 2020 seems to be ProPhoto wide (so wider than Adobe RGB or DCI-P3), but the human eye can see it all.
Another first class tutorial. Excellent discussion. So, following your chat, what specifically have you decided to change in your post-processing workflow now? It would be really useful to know (as a mainly RAW-into-Lightroom Classic -with-occasional PS-to -A4 print guy) how you have adapted this knowledge, given Lightroom's default ProPhoto in Develop mode. Many thanks again
Thanks for watching.
Well for now atleast I have adopted an Adobe RGB workflow but if anytihng changes and why I"ll keep you posted.
I would take issue with the statement that no printer can print colours outside of ARGB. Top end printers with good quality glossy papers absolutely can. However, although I have seen a definite improvement, especially in reds and greens between srgb and argb, I have yet to see any difference between argb and prophoto. That is on my Elson P800. So why use prohoto? It is because no data wil be lost. In the future taht clour data may be useable.
ARGB? You mean Adobe RGB right?
When you say top end printers on glossy paper 'can' print outisde ... are you saying they have a 'larger' colour space or are you saying they print some colours 'outside' of Adobe RGB? It's important to clarify this.
The Epson SC-P900 for example has an Adobe RGB gamut volume of 806717 hoewever the Gamut Volume of Adobe RGB is 1154243.
@@glyndewis When the ARGB space is compared with the gamut of a typical high end inkjet printer and ink combination, it is seen that there are some colours that can be reproduced in the print that are outside the ARGB space.
In fairness printed colours that are outside of Adobe rgb are minimal and in practice it is rare that a difference will be seen. However, printers, inks and papers are getting better. So why throw out data that could be used in the future?
No one is saying what you MUST d
Glyn, great video. I am like you , its adobe rgb to adobe rgb printerI have a hardware calibrated Benq monitor and a cannon pro 100 printer. One difference is I'm all about using Bridge and PS. Why do you always start in Lightroom? I know its popular with alot of people. I just can't figure out why. Not trying to start any arguments, just curious.🙂
great tuto. I often have problem in composites. I am working in lightroom classic in prophoto on raw and i export in photoshop in prophoto and make a composite with images coming from web, so i suppose srgb. I think it is ok and come back to lightroom and have color shifts... So, I usually export photo from lightroom in srgb, make composites in photoshop and finish everything in photoshop and, if needed, import srgb in LRC to print. How do you see such composite workflow ? can you please make another tuto more in details about your adobe rgb export and color profile setup in photoshop and printing. I am using a cano pro-300 and more and more leaving LRC for printing and using the canon software "Professional Print and Layout". It seems that Matt Kloskowski now is alos using Epson software instead of LRC.
Why do you not have your Gray Gamma set correctly, for Adobe 98? It should be Gray Gamma 2.2
Excellent! Thanks!
Thank you, that's very useful
Great insight into colour space mate, presented to your usual high standards.
This reminded me to finally check my colour spaces in LR and PS. Had to alter them both! I also noticed that LR was set to send external edits to PS 2023, not 2024. I thought that would have been taken care of in the update, so worth checking eh?
Also noticed that PS has a setting, 'Desaturate Monitor Color' by 20%. Although it's unchecked/ticked on my MAC. Why would you need to desaturate the monitor colour? 🤔
Anyway, thanks for sharing, really helpful. 😎😎😎
My one question is, I have a Spyder to colour correct my laptop screens and my monitor, which I do once a month but if I set the colour profile to ProPhoto or Adobe RGB on the units they are more cyan blue where the colour corrected with the Spyder has more for a warm look. So which one is right or do I use?
great info...and if the prophoto rgb can't be printed then WHY lr is recommending It ? adobe could've prefer to have ONLY adobe rgb....🤔
You’ll not find prophoto RGB in the software made by the printer manufacturers
Great! You have answered some of the most important questions I had. Yet, I wonder what color space I should use on my excellent BenQ monitor (sw271) when editing in Lightroom (and any other editing software) , since I'm only sharing my photos to social media ..
If I use Adobe RGB then I will enjoy a rich color experience while editing but when I export it to an sRGB Jpeg , the output will be reduced somehow. On the other hand, if I will be editing with sRGB mode on my monitor ,then I'm not taking the full advantage of it...
What is the solution to this dilemma?
Thanks
Have the BenQ in Adobe RGB; if you see a drasric difference in the conversion to sRGB then you can edit that
I use Adobe RGB, but will calibrating in Native. The reason is that I want to work in the largest color space the monitor can provide. Plus I think there are less steps in the conversion process from Lightroom/Photoshop to the monitor. Look at some of Artisright's videos for Benq.
There is an ongoing discussion as to using Native or Adobe RGB. I know Art and we botrh have a mutual friend in Dr Chris Bai from BenQ who in. my conversation suggested Adobe RGB
@@glyndewis thanks - I just calibrated with Native in one calibration channel and Adobe RGB in other. I will see which works better.
Unfortunately, it is not true that printers do not go beyond AdobeRGB. Even my old Canon Pro-1 exceeded AdobeRGB on barite paper, especially in the green and yellow shades. Unfortunately I can't upload a graphical representation of that profile as measured by the calibration probe.
Printers can print outside the Adobe RGB in some colours BUT nowhere near ProPhotoRGB he3nce why it's best toprint in Adobe RGB unlike the advice I have seen saying you can. send a ProPhoto RGB file to a printer. You can but it will not look good.
@@glyndewis It depends on the quality of the algorithm that converts the ProPhoto gamut to the printer gamut. In fact, you have to use a similar algorithm when converting from ProPhoto to AdobeRGB, only you do it in Photoshop (or Lightroom,...) instead of in the printer software. In addition, the same algorithm then converts AdobeRGB to the printer gamut.
Interesting, thank you
Ok I know this a dumb question, but I would like it confirming please. I have a Benq PD2725U monitor. I have just been editing a picture I took today of two motorbikes that I intend to share to them via email, using Lightroom.
I made the pic look pretty good and felt it was ready to be sent off. Then I realised I had my monitor set to REC 709. So I’m going to need to start the edit again.
I have m-book, P3 and sRGB, but I don’t have AdobeRGB.
So which monitor profile do you think it is best for me to edit in, with the fact the customer is going to see the result for the first time via email.
Thanks for your help.
Martyn.
That's great information! Still a little confused though...
Can someone explain what's the point of importing into Lightroom as ProPhoto while all other actions are executed in AdobeRGB? Shouldn't I be importing into Lightroom in AdobeRGB too?
Camera shoots in AdobeRGB (or sRGB)
Import to Lightroom in ProPhoto (standard setting)
Export to .jpg for print in AdobeRGB?
Export to Photoshop in AdobeRGB
Export from Photoshop to .jpg/.tiff in AdobeRGB
You're not importing into Lightroom in ProPhoto; Lightroom renders previews viewable as ProPhoto RGB. Camera only shoots in Adobe RGB or sRGB 'if' you shoot in Jpeg otherwise you shoot Raw so no Color Space is assigned ... it's merely viewable as a Rendered Preivew in ProPhoto RGB. Some would say to remain in ProPhoto when exporting to Photoshop or even print however that's not what I do as I like a consistent workflow. Displays also don't show images in ProPhoto RGB as no display out there is capable of display the entire color space plus human eye cannot see all of the ProPhoto RGB color space.
For consistency I stick with Adobe RGB, BUT you could choose to work in ProPhoto RGB 'if' your reason is for future proofing however ... 'you' still won't be capable of seeing the entire color space anyway.
Is the conversion also the reason why my images look oversaturated on iphones and after export from lightroom.
I have this bizarre issue, my image will be oversaturated after export from Lightroom. Monitor is set to srgb, exported in srgb so there shouldn't be a conversion issue. What could it be?
Glyn, you didn't ask a question would have been fascinated to hear the answer to. Let's ignore sRGB for the second and go to Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB. Who created BOTH of these? Adobe. WHY? Why did they create ProPhoto RGB at all if it is of no practical use for either display or for printing?
My gut says they know the limitations of Adobe RGB and are future-proofing with ProPhoto RGB. I can see the logic of why not to use ProPhoto RGB but if that logic is correct (and I have no reason to doubt the gentleman) I come back to the question of why did Adobe create ProPhoto in the first place and why did they set it to the default for Lightroom? I can only assume they are doing it now so that in future, when displays do have that capability, and when printers do have that capability, then the images edited using ProPhoto can simply be printed without further change/edit.
I'd love to know the Adobe answer rather than the Benq answer.
Already answered in a pinned comment a while back... archiving
hello, thanks for the insight.
may i ask, should i choose to work with adobe RGB if i only have monitor gamut like
sRGB 99%
AdobeRGB 74%
NTSC 72%
or is it better with sRGB which can represents 99% them?
thanks in advance.
Surely your camera's color profile is set to Adobe RGB for you to have continuity, from Camera to software to printer ???
It is BUT I shoot Raw so the colour profile of the camera is completely irrelevant
@@glyndewis I did not know that...Raw...yea but other than that..., this is an eye opener !!!
Hello Glyn, thank you for such interesting content. To reduce file space, MP3 eliminates certain frequencies that are not audible to humans, but according to many specialists, reduces the sensation of "rich" sound that we have in uncompressed audio. Won't the same happen with color spaces? Let me explain: if I use a very wide color space, like ProPhoto, although my eyes and devices cannot show me the full range of nuances, that color space has no loss of information in the edition, it is not "mutilated", and Therefore, when I convert it to a smaller space when printing, such as AdobeRGB, I will get all the information available after editing; We cannot go from 70dpi to 300dpi without loss, but we can go the other way around. Makes sense?. Thank you
Accurate, read my comment above as I didn't see yours before now. Why do we listen to 44.1kHz audio when ears can't handle more than 22kHz? ;) Same as we listen and record in to 48kHz, 96kHz and even higher. DAC contains a filter that is very steep at lower frequency's that translates in to modulation/distortion. Higher frequency (that we can't hear) translates in to less steep filtering in DAC. Same can be said about our editing tools in LR and Photoshop. The more volume and bigger container we have, the more evenly edits get applied, without making huge visual errors after color transform. ACE (Adobe Color Engine as shown in Color Settings would transform colors "RELATIVELY" if set to RELATIVE from ProPhotoRGB in to your monitors calibrated colorspace, even if it is only 90% of sRGB, which is quite possible on older monitors and low end laptops. This whole discussion is a non-topic if people start to learn how color transform work. There is only one gotcha, and that is you have to use 16 bit if using big colorspace, or else you will end up getting artifacts and stepping in gradients when converting down to sRGB.
years ago a friend showed me an organ that made many kinds of instments sounds one was a trumpet it sounded just so real he then pushed in a few stops and it no longer sounded right after he then just played the stops he closed and you could hear nothing. so nothing we hear makes a big difference .
@@chazM6116 But that is analogous and not digital, so therefore not the same. What I'm talking about is if you push a curve in RGB with 256 colors pr channel (sRGB), the small adjustments you do is a steeper one compared to a curve in AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB with a heck of a lot more tones between. Compare this to throwing a brick in to a 4gallon bucket vs brick in to a bath tub. The modification of bytes in those respective gamuts is quite a big difference. The ripples and splash is going to make a bigger difference in the bucket vs bath tub, and that is your sRGB container vs ProPhotoRGB container.
it was electronic @@atephoto
You would be hard pressed to hear a difference between 16/44.1 and mp3 in a blind test.
Question; what do you set your camara to use sRGB or ADOBE RGB?
I shoot Raw so it doesn't matter as it isn't applied; the sRGB or Adobe RGB setting only comes into play when shooting JPEG
@@glyndewis Thank you for that informaction.
so then...what is the purpose of ProPhoto? I have always used it assuming more information to edit with.
Archiving for future technology
I have a question: at the end of the video ( 9:30 ) you show the export settings from Lightroom to Photoshop. So: you export on TIFF and Resolution 240? I can understand the TIFF but why not 300 resolution? I thought that 300 affects the quality of the printing (300dpi) or not?
The print resolution dpi refers to how many dots of ink the printer lays down and how much each time the print head shifts to overlap
@@glyndewis so doesn't affect my printing if i sent the pic to PH with 240 resolution.... Ok. It was my misconception. Thanks Glyn
The problem with color science experts is that you have to understand color science to understand the answers.
Should I keep my camera set as Argb to keep more color information even my photos turns out not for printing, mostly digital use?
If you;re shooting Raw then the coilour setting 'in camera' makes no difference; that's for when shooting jpeg 👍🏻
Glyn, that was extremely informative. Now I know NOT to use ProPhoto (which I anyway suspected). But with Macs these days, they often want to default to “Display P3” which is similar in size to Adobe RGB, but different. Could you please follow up on your video and include a discussion of that and what to do with it? I’ve been confused whether to use Display P3 and then convert to Adobe RBG or sRGB for the export or to rather change the default settings to Adobe RGB from the beginning. Thanks!
My notion (which may be wrong) is to use ProPhoto so that no colors are lost at the outset. From there my color menu is parred back by my monitor and, ultimately, by my printer. By starting out with more colors than I could ever print, am I somehow ending up with some sort of avoidable color inaccuracy in my final result? Has anyone compared prints that began in the ProPhoto color space to the same prints originally confined to Adobe RGB color space?
"Has anyone compared prints that began in the ProPhoto color space to the same prints originally confined to Adobe RGB color space?"
This will depend on how potentially if you have out of gamut colors that don't fit into AdobeRGB, and you are using ProPhoto RGB. Than you need to figure out how will you squeeze the colors in AdobeRGB, and depending on the method sometime scaled rendering intent, although there are manual and custom ways to do it as well, you will get different results.
Basically if you have to take wider gamut colors and squeeze them into smaller color space, you have to sacrifice something, usually the level of details in over saturated areas. You can just cut it off when there is out of gamut colors, or you can proportionally squeeze everything into smaller color space at the expense of changing the color appearance of even those colors that can be printed. This is the rendering intent method. relative colorimetric vs perceptual and two other are common. There are some tools like DXO PhotoLab that offers more advance algorithms for this, but its not Adobe.
Off course no Printer can print ProPhoto gamut, since its so large, and Adobe RGB is not always one for one representation of the color space for the printer, based on ink and paper combination. So sometimes you might have some colors in Adobe RGB that you can print, and some that are outside of the AdobeRGB. The ECI-RGB V2 color space is one of the standardized RGB color spaces that is trying to go beyond AdobeRGB ever so slightly to solve this issue, and so is new DXO wide Gamut color space, but only available for their products.
Of course if you are printing black and white images, it does not matter if its sRGB or ProPhoto or whatever, there is no out of gamut colors to worry about. So it depends on the image. Also it depends on the capture devices. Is is in JPEG in which case probably sRGB and AdobeRGB are avilable only , or is it RAW file, in which case you are also depending on the processing of a specific application you use for developing a raw files. C1. Lr. DXO or something else. They will all work a bit different. As you said, most RAW programs start with wider color gamut for the working profile, but sometimes ProPhoto is just too much so technically its an overkill for virtually all situations , but it is a safest color space in terms of storing gall the color data.
Its just that sooner or later you have to convert to a smaller color space for output. Ideally you would start with wide, but not too wide. AdobeRGB, ECIv2 and DXO Wide Gamut, are designed for that, in that order. Adobe RGB 1998 is the older as the name implies so sometimes its not enough for some monitors and printers that can go wider. Again depends on the color in the image itself of course.
Thank you so much for your incredible reply. I'm going to keep it and re-read it several times. (I know enough about colorspaces to be dangerous but can't claim that I'm well informed.)
Things that I wonder about are: Where do all those greens and blues left out of Adobe RGB occur in nature? If we could invent something close to a ProPhoto monitor, how different would our on-screen perceptions be? Would our emotional response be all that different? How did the original scientists who determined the full colorspace that humans perceive manage to do this, when there's no man-made medium to project them?
Because they're so similiar, I wonder why the P3 and Adobe RGB color spaces can't be combined into one.
Thanks again,
Trevor
@@KrunoslavStifter
If you post on internet use srgb, if print to adobergb,
Exactly
The conversation here is about sending an Adobe RTGB image to the printer ... nice of you to push in though 😉
"...there's no device that can display ProPhoto color space". True, but that's not the point. The point is, having ALL of the color information available to you when processing allows for deeper greens, yellows and reds, oranges, purples, better gradations, etc. You don't see them all on your screen, but they are there nonetheless. Once you complete processing and begin to convert for final use, the conversion from ProPhoto to sRGB will give you a much better result. The mathematical values of each color you can't see are converted as closely as possible to the colors you CAN see, thus giving you richer color bit-depth and more image detail. Remember, it's "garbage in, garbage out". Mixing and adjusting the colors you don't see often times gives you new colors you DO see and that can be printed.
Garbage in, Garbage out? ... Not sure where this fits in
So where are we with this? I currently process my raws in Adobe rgb 16 bit. Export out as Srgb jpeg for web and print? Occasionally send tifs if the client requests
If you're printing yourself then definitely Adobe RGB but if sending to a lab, check what they accept.
Thanks Glyn, appreciate it. I’ve watched this debate over the years and still find it confusing:)
comparison of gamma 2.2 and L-star
Only if you give me your eyes
If we can't see the entire gamut of ProPhoto, but Adobe RGB falls within ProPhoto's range, what's the point of ever using PP? Possibly to futureproof our photos for new technology and breakthrough medical procedures where humans may have the choice to outfit themselves with ProPhoto eyeballs?
100% ... Check out my pinned comment 👍🏻
Who cares? The benefit of a larger colorspace is future proofing. Who knows what tech will be available in 5-10yrs? Good thing our computers can already handle it juat in case it helps then.
For now, yes, your screen requires a color space transformation (or will clip), but that's fine. There is no actual downside to editing in prophoto rgb... you'll be viewing in a different colorspace by default and what you don't see won't hurt you.
Before you print, you'll be viewing in an even more limited colorspace during soft proofing. We already know you should edit differently for differenr screens and different papers... You'll be fine in prophoto too
Equally so in Adobe RGB ... I can see that. Future Proofing? Getting your eyes upgraded in the future then so you can see the ProPhoto RGB colour space? 🤔
Rec2020? not as "big" as Profoto but the monitor industry/movie/videomakers seen to be betting on this colour space?
This is about Photo and Printing; video is different
After watching this I changed my export Lightroom export profiles to Adobe RGB, but when I eport from Lightroom to Photoshop, I still see that asterisk. How can I confirm that the profile in Photoshop is now Adobe RGB.
Go to Edit > Convert to Profile. Don’t do anything else other than look to see what the profile is.
Check working colour settings in Photoshop are Adobe RGB also check Lightroom preferences set to Adobe RGB for external editing.
I'll see if I can figure all this out 🤣@@glyndewis
Well, I did as you instructed, went to edit.convert to profile and found the profile was CMYK!!! 🤣 Changed it to Adobe RGB.Went to Color Settings and it was sRGB, so I changed that to Adobe RGB as well. I changed my export settings in Lightromm. Fingers crossed.
if 99% of the people who view your photos dont use calibrated monitors whats the point in caliubrating? really I think best reference is the iphone. it has a great display and its so commonly used. if your photo looks good on your iphone you are good to go. IMO
... and you're 100% entitled to it ... BUT .... 😉
I use ProPhoto because I don’t print 🙃🤷🏻♂️
Adobe RGB isn't 'just' for printing ... it's an entire workflow BUT it's your choice which Colour Space you use and why 😉
@@glyndewis I must have missed that point in the video! I thought it was best for archive use as retained more of the full colour space?
Hmm... I think Dr Bai is wrong. To say that no printer can print outside of Adobe RGB I'm almost positive is false. Think with me for a moment. One, I've heard from another color expert that some printers CAN print outside of Adobe RGB-mind you, not totally outside, but in some limited areas. But, just thinking about it... monitors can get to full, or 99%, of Adobe RGB with the very limited... R G B !!! How many photo printers have way more colors than that? Most photo printers, in my opinion, with multi-color inksets, should be able to go out of the bounds of Adobe RGB in some areas.
But, also, there is no downside to using Pro Photo IF it is done properly and with appropriate care. Yes, easier said than done when color management is almost the blackest magic ever, but manageable with a bit of research and effort.
Basing an answer on a 'should' suggests that you don't know for definite
@@glyndewis How Dr. Bai answered the question also suggests that he doesn't know for definite.
@@glyndewis But seriously, working in Adobe RGB isn't going to be the difference in how anyone's work is perceived. I work in Pro Photo. I am confident that working in Adobe would be imperceptible.
Nobody is saying you 'must' do anything ... it's information for you to consider. What you decide is down to you.
I'm not 😜
👍🏻
display dude talks about printers.... funny.... there are inks that get you outside of AdobeRGB gamut
sRGB. Always sRGB.
Personal choice, but not good for skin tones (more yellow / green) and definitely missng out on colours that your display and printer can reproduce / show
@@glyndewis the avrg display or a phone can do only sRGB. Anything else is an illusion. And yeah I calibrate displays and edit photos for magz for 25+ years.
Modern displays are capable of 100% Adobe RGB however manufacturers don't state 100% becuase it's not possible to say all models will be when mass production ... ehich is why 99% Adobe RGB is stated. Also, the time doing something doesn't make a person 'right' ... I see people that have been driving for many years and I wouldn't dare be their passenger 😃
@@glyndewis Maybe Apple displays. Good luck with that.
😉