[argyllcms] Re: Beta RGB As a Color Workspace
- From: "Andreas F.X. Siegert" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:00:17 +0200
Hi Chris,
On 2014-07-17 10:13, Chris Lilley wrote:
Firstly, the rendering intent used for gamut mapping is not
discussed. When a wide gamut image is reduced down to a very small
one, relative colorimetric tends to keep the in-gamut colours the same
and piles up all the OOG colours at the boundary to give flat areas
where there used to be gradients. Perceptual, aka do something magic
and undefined, tends to map the entire source gamut to the destination
gamut in a content-unaware way which results in significant and
needless desaturation.
But that is irrelevant for the topic of whether to keep stuff wide till
the end or convert to small at the beginning. The conversion will have
to happen anyway. The question is, where do your losses happen or where
is the bigger chance that you loose something in your path from camera
to output.
And it also depends whether the tool chain you use even allows that
selection.
Export from Lightroom or AfterShot for example is hardwired.
The second thing that is missing is an examination of whether 16 bits
per component is actually sufficient for ProPhoto. It isn't, really,
for Lab and it needs to be shown, rather than assumed, that 16 bit is
sufficient resolution for ProPhoto.
Well, in all practicality, there are only a few image editors out there
that can handle more than 16bits, so it becomes theoretical issue.
I rather stick to practical stuff I can test empirically. And it is so
easy, even with a $100 toy printer (and appropriately profiled paper) to
see that staying wide 'till the end gives the most realistic rendering
of saturated colors.
Some words on the gamut of your printer, and links to the various
profiles used, would also round out a nicely argued article.
Yup, it is somewhere on my todo list.
cheers
afx
--
http://afximages.com/
Other related posts:
