[argyllcms] Re: Beta RGB As a Color Workspace

  • From: <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:22:52 +0100

Iliah Borg wrote:
<<> I was referring to having to convert from sRGB, AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB
to
> one's working space of choice

Not sure I agree because I do not like "blind" conversions, that is without
any control over gamut mapping. Since the internal working space of ACR and
LR is based on ProPhoto primaries I think it is better to leave the output
as ProPhoto.>>

Hi Iliah,

Yes, well this is the subject of much debate over at Luminous Landscape.

Sooner or later we have to convert from ProPhoto to the output space and no
doubt there are reasons (that I don't understand as I am not a color
scientist) why it is better to do this sooner or later in the workflow.

Adobe allows conversion to AdobeRGB and sRGB on opening the image to
Photoshop ... in which case why is BetaRGB and other workspaces not allowed?
Surely you would agree that converting to sRGB is more drastic than
converting to BetaRGB? And is AdobeRGB more 'useful' than BetaRGB? If not,
why is it allowed?

At any rate, I don't think this is a decision that Adobe should make for us
(and they have, wisely IMO, relaxed this limitation in ACR).

Whenever a conversion is required it should presumably not be done "blind".
Before opening the image in Photoshop, or exporting it to a tif or psd,
surely we should do a soft-proof and verify that we will not clip colors.

I like opening the image into Photoshop as a raw Smart Object because if any
of the colors are clipped in any color space conversion, it's very easy and
safe to go into the SO and correct it.  As the raw image itself is not
changed, no damage is done.

Robert 




Other related posts: